Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Responsible Innovation
Definition of Responsible Innovation
Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products( in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)Quoted from:
Von Schomberg,Rene (2011) ‘Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation’ in: Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methode, P.39-61, Wiesbaden: Springer VS
Free pdf available at:
https://www.box.com/s/f9quor8jo1bi3ham8lfc
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Have STS fallen into a political void? Depoliticisation and engagement in thecase of nanotechnologies
François Thoreau
Pierre Delvenne
"In this paper we trace some of the key points in the history of Science and
Technology Studies (STS). In particular we outline the inherently political
dynamics of the field. Against We underline two emerging patterns in
the curse of STS: the one of “depoliticisation” and the one of increasing
“engagement”. We address the case study nanotechnologies and discuss
their intertwined history with the STS. This allows us to point at the risk
that the increasing institutionalisation of STS and the political mandate
that frames and stabilizes the field’s relationship to the technological
developments would create a political void. We conclude that STS
research is at a crossroads. It is facing an important empirical turn, which
may deprive it from its political significance, and constantly redefine its
institutional constraints. STS has to continuously question its underlying
political assumptions (as it occurs more and more regarding public
participation) and to make it explicit.
François Thoreau
Pierre Delvenne
"In this paper we trace some of the key points in the history of Science and
Technology Studies (STS). In particular we outline the inherently political
dynamics of the field. Against We underline two emerging patterns in
the curse of STS: the one of “depoliticisation” and the one of increasing
“engagement”. We address the case study nanotechnologies and discuss
their intertwined history with the STS. This allows us to point at the risk
that the increasing institutionalisation of STS and the political mandate
that frames and stabilizes the field’s relationship to the technological
developments would create a political void. We conclude that STS
research is at a crossroads. It is facing an important empirical turn, which
may deprive it from its political significance, and constantly redefine its
institutional constraints. STS has to continuously question its underlying
political assumptions (as it occurs more and more regarding public
participation) and to make it explicit.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
ETC group:
Lots of material on technology assessment (the need for...) and topics like nano, geoengineering...
Lots of material on technology assessment (the need for...) and topics like nano, geoengineering...
Recent Reports
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Study on the Social Impact of ICT
Doesnt seem aware of the PICT programme's contributions, but has lots of useful material IMStudy on the Social Impact of ICT
This study, as the result of cross-European academic collaboration, highlights ten major trends in contemporary society, from the significant reduction of timespans through social infrastructure, class and political engagement to an increase in choice. Amplified, so the argument goes, by ICT, their adoption and progress is aided by the technology, but they were already happening anyway. Although this leads to the conclusion that society is changing independently of technological advance though aided by it, the report goes on to study in greater depth a number of specific domains such as eGovernment participation, health, work and the community, and tries to establish any underlying long-term transformations in four key areas: rationalisation (effectiveness and so forth), networking and social capital, empowerment and participation, and the availability of information and lifelong learning.
The report is a significant recent contribution to the debate about where technology has taken us. Relating much relevant academic research along the way, it offers a refreshing view of an underlying collaborative evolution of social forces taking advantage of technical advances that were not anticipated by the simplistic utopian promises made for the Internet towards the end of the 20th century.
The full report is available here
Friday, August 19, 2011
Workplace Development as Part of Broad-based Innovation Policy:
Exploiting and Exploring Three Types of Knowledge
❚❚ Tuomo Alasoini
Director, Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation,
Adjunct Professor (Sociology), University of Helsinki, Finland
"Abstract
This paper looks at the possibilities that a broad-based innovation policy contained by the national
innovation strategy recently adopted in Finland opens up for the promotion of workplace
innovations and examines the types of knowledge needed in workplace development. The author
highlights the interconnections between workplace development and the prerequisites of both
economic growth and the preservation of the Finnish welfare state. The paper also aims to explain
why, in addition to the productivity of work, improving the quality of working life should feature as
an increasingly important aim in the innovation policy of the future. An argument for the need of
three types of knowledge in workplace development – design knowledge, process knowledge and
dissemination knowledge – is made, together with an overview on new developments in each of
those three domains. In conclusion, the author demonstrates how problems in the productivity of
work and the quality of working life can be simultaneously tackled with at work organization level
through two kinds of development approaches....."
Exploiting and Exploring Three Types of Knowledge
❚❚ Tuomo Alasoini
Director, Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation,
Adjunct Professor (Sociology), University of Helsinki, Finland
"Abstract
This paper looks at the possibilities that a broad-based innovation policy contained by the national
innovation strategy recently adopted in Finland opens up for the promotion of workplace
innovations and examines the types of knowledge needed in workplace development. The author
highlights the interconnections between workplace development and the prerequisites of both
economic growth and the preservation of the Finnish welfare state. The paper also aims to explain
why, in addition to the productivity of work, improving the quality of working life should feature as
an increasingly important aim in the innovation policy of the future. An argument for the need of
three types of knowledge in workplace development – design knowledge, process knowledge and
dissemination knowledge – is made, together with an overview on new developments in each of
those three domains. In conclusion, the author demonstrates how problems in the productivity of
work and the quality of working life can be simultaneously tackled with at work organization level
through two kinds of development approaches....."
Monday, July 25, 2011
Academy of Medical Science on human-animal chimera prospects
"Experiments that were of concern to both the public and the scientific
community focus on research studies involving modification of the animal
brain that could potentially lead to human-like ‘cerebral’ function,
experiments which might lead to fertilisation of human eggs or sperm in
an animal; and modification of an animal to create characteristics
perceived as uniquely human, such as facial shape, skin texture, or
speech."
community focus on research studies involving modification of the animal
brain that could potentially lead to human-like ‘cerebral’ function,
experiments which might lead to fertilisation of human eggs or sperm in
an animal; and modification of an animal to create characteristics
perceived as uniquely human, such as facial shape, skin texture, or
speech."
Why the technology will develop:
"Some examples of ACHM include:
- · Mice carrying human genes are widely used to study many diseases, including neurological and anxiety disorders, osteoporosis, heart disease and cancer.
- · Goats which have a human gene incorporated in their genome are used to produce a human protein (an anti-thrombin) which is used to treat blood clotting disorders.
- · Mice implanted with sections of human tumour are used in cancer research to study how cancers develop and spread, and to test new drugs and therapies.
- · Introducing human stem cells into rats can provide an opportunity to study the human brain’s potential for repairing the damage caused by stroke.
- · Mice which have their immune systems or livers reconstituted with human cells are used to study diseases such as HIV or hepatitis."
Why we need to think the bioethics and regulation sooner, not later
(from Financial Times summary, since very pithy):
"US scientists have also created mice in which one-quarter of the brain cells are human neurons, and they have discussed – but not gone ahead with – making a mouse in which all neurons are derived from human stem cells.
“If you replaced an entire mouse brain with human neurons, it would almost certainly still be a mouse, though with some interesting changes,” Prof Bobrow said. “But for something with a bigger and more complex brain, such as a primate, it is hard to guess what the result would be.”
Another controversial move would be to make animals sound like humans. A gene associated with human language has been transferred to mice. “These animals vocalise slightly differently from ordinary mice – but they don’t speak,” said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of stem cell biology at the National Institute for Medical Research.
“If you come home and your pet parrot says, ‘Who’s a pretty boy then?’, that’s one thing,” added Christopher Shaw, neurology professor at King’s College London. “If your pet monkey says it, that’s another.”
The academy recommends that the Home Office, which regulates animal experiments in the UK, establish a national expert body to provide specific advice on sensitive types of research involving humanised animals...."
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Beyond pro-innovation bias
Hanken - Beyond the pro-innovation bias
"The Project 'Beyond the pro-innovation bias' emerged as a response to a concern about unintended and undesirable consequences of innovation amongst a group of researchers at the Department of Management and Organisation. Although innovation is one of the most commonly mentioned concepts in social science unintended undesirable consequences of innovation are rarely studied. This project addresses this shortcoming and implications following from it.
...
Why is this important?
In his review of innovation literature twenty-five years ago, Rogers (1983) noticed that only 0.2 % of innovation research articles addressed consequences of innovation. To follow up this study this project (Sveiby et al., 2009) conducted a study including a literature review of all articles in the EBSCO database, with innovation in the title and which study undesirable consequences. Although 'innovation' hits reach hundreds of thousands, refining searches into 'negative or undesirable consequences' decreases the hits radically. The study found only 26 articles on unintended and undesirable consequences of innovation; 1 per 1000, a proportion that has not changed since the 1960's. Hence it seems important to ask why this is the case, what the implications are and how excluded or silenced voices can be promoted in the research field of innovation.
What does the project explore?
The project attempts to go beyond the 'pro-innovation bias'. Innovation research seems to be built on a fundamental assumption that 'innovation is good', which limits the ability of decision makers and change agents to anticipate unintended and undesirable consequences. Hence, a central theme is to develop an understanding of how this bias is constructed in order to explore how it could be deconstructed.
Another central theme of the project is the separation of discourses on desirable and undesirable consequences. More specifically, undesirable consequences of innovation can potentially follow from all types of innovation. These consequences are to some (unknown) degree studied in disciplines such as biology, medicine, environmental studies and sustainable development, and theories are constructed within perspectives drawing on sociology, CMS, STS, etc. Innovation research, however, seems to have implicitly isolated itself from considering them. The separation of discourses in this manner can have dangerous implications. One is that innovation studies have become "routinized". Another is a case of self-defeating purpose; as change agents receive little practical guidance from innovation researchers on how to consider undesirable consequences, they may cause unnecessary suffering among stakeholders, thereby reducing the net value of an innovation. Yet another is a self-feeding vicious circle; unless undesirable consequences are highlighted by innovation researchers, funding bodies see little point in funding such studies, thereby further reducing research. ...."Papers by researchers who will take part in the workshop:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Annick CASTIAUX, professor:
Can
Corporate Responsbility foster innovation in high-tech firms? [pdf] 194kDavid EDGAR, professor:
Innovation
in Practice and Practising Innovation [docx] 770k and
Revealing
Nuance in Entrepreneurial and Innovative Activity [docx] 15kYrjö ENGESTRÖM, professor:
The
Change Laboratory as a Cultivator of Employee-Driven Innovations [docx]
21kJan FAGERBERG, professor:
The
evolution of Norways national innovation system [pdf] 234k and
Innovation
- A Guide to the Literature [pdf] 92kMartin FOUGÈRE, assistant professor:
Against
Corporate Responsibility (Fougere & Solitander) [pdf] 231kLidia GALABOVA, assistant professor and PhD:
Six
Sigma innovation [pdf] 106kMagnus GULBRANDSEN, professor:
Research
institutes as hybrid organizations [docx] 62k and
Organisational
Tensions and Research Work [pdf] 162kNancy HARDING, professor:
Medical
diagnosis and the construction of dementia [docx] 45kMervi HASU, PhD:
In Search of
Sensitive Ethnography of Change [pdf] 2461kKarl-Heinz LEITNER, Phd:
Innovation
Futures [pdf] 773kMartin LINDELL, professor:
Developing
New Products - An action, interaction and contextual approach [pdf]
2441kLinda McKIE, professor:
Marie
Curie project [pdf] 277kM Paloma SANCHEZ, professor:
Shortcomings
in the measurement of innovation [pdf] 247kKarl-Erik SVEIBY, Pernilla GRIPENBERG & Beata SEGERCRANTZ:
Unintended
and Undesirable Consequences of Innovation [pdf] 154kUrmas VARBLANE, professor:
Assessing
innovative behaviour of firms [pdf] 194k and
Can
The National Innovation Systems of the New EU Member States Be Improved
[pdf] 199k
Hanken - Beyond the pro-innovation bias
"The Project 'Beyond the pro-innovation bias' emerged as a response to a concern about unintended and undesirable consequences of innovation amongst a group of researchers at the Department of Management and Organisation. Although innovation is one of the most commonly mentioned concepts in social science unintended undesirable consequences of innovation are rarely studied. This project addresses this shortcoming and implications following from it.
...
Why is this important?
In his review of innovation literature twenty-five years ago, Rogers (1983) noticed that only 0.2 % of innovation research articles addressed consequences of innovation. To follow up this study this project (Sveiby et al., 2009) conducted a study including a literature review of all articles in the EBSCO database, with innovation in the title and which study undesirable consequences. Although 'innovation' hits reach hundreds of thousands, refining searches into 'negative or undesirable consequences' decreases the hits radically. The study found only 26 articles on unintended and undesirable consequences of innovation; 1 per 1000, a proportion that has not changed since the 1960's. Hence it seems important to ask why this is the case, what the implications are and how excluded or silenced voices can be promoted in the research field of innovation.
What does the project explore?
The project attempts to go beyond the 'pro-innovation bias'. Innovation research seems to be built on a fundamental assumption that 'innovation is good', which limits the ability of decision makers and change agents to anticipate unintended and undesirable consequences. Hence, a central theme is to develop an understanding of how this bias is constructed in order to explore how it could be deconstructed.
Another central theme of the project is the separation of discourses on desirable and undesirable consequences. More specifically, undesirable consequences of innovation can potentially follow from all types of innovation. These consequences are to some (unknown) degree studied in disciplines such as biology, medicine, environmental studies and sustainable development, and theories are constructed within perspectives drawing on sociology, CMS, STS, etc. Innovation research, however, seems to have implicitly isolated itself from considering them. The separation of discourses in this manner can have dangerous implications. One is that innovation studies have become "routinized". Another is a case of self-defeating purpose; as change agents receive little practical guidance from innovation researchers on how to consider undesirable consequences, they may cause unnecessary suffering among stakeholders, thereby reducing the net value of an innovation. Yet another is a self-feeding vicious circle; unless undesirable consequences are highlighted by innovation researchers, funding bodies see little point in funding such studies, thereby further reducing research. ...."
Papers by researchers who will take part in the workshop:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Annick CASTIAUX, professor: Can Corporate Responsbility foster innovation in high-tech firms? [pdf] 194k
David EDGAR, professor: Innovation in Practice and Practising Innovation [docx] 770k and Revealing Nuance in Entrepreneurial and Innovative Activity [docx] 15k
Yrjö ENGESTRÖM, professor: The Change Laboratory as a Cultivator of Employee-Driven Innovations [docx] 21k
Jan FAGERBERG, professor: The evolution of Norways national innovation system [pdf] 234k and Innovation - A Guide to the Literature [pdf] 92k
Martin FOUGÈRE, assistant professor: Against Corporate Responsibility (Fougere & Solitander) [pdf] 231k
Lidia GALABOVA, assistant professor and PhD: Six Sigma innovation [pdf] 106k
Magnus GULBRANDSEN, professor: Research institutes as hybrid organizations [docx] 62k and Organisational Tensions and Research Work [pdf] 162k
Nancy HARDING, professor: Medical diagnosis and the construction of dementia [docx] 45k
Mervi HASU, PhD: In Search of Sensitive Ethnography of Change [pdf] 2461k
Karl-Heinz LEITNER, Phd: Innovation Futures [pdf] 773k
Martin LINDELL, professor: Developing New Products - An action, interaction and contextual approach [pdf] 2441k
Linda McKIE, professor: Marie Curie project [pdf] 277k
M Paloma SANCHEZ, professor: Shortcomings in the measurement of innovation [pdf] 247k
Karl-Erik SVEIBY, Pernilla GRIPENBERG & Beata SEGERCRANTZ: Unintended and Undesirable Consequences of Innovation [pdf] 154k
Urmas VARBLANE, professor: Assessing innovative behaviour of firms [pdf] 194k and Can The National Innovation Systems of the New EU Member States Be Improved [pdf] 199k
