Managing responsible innovation in European healthcare living labs: aligning ethical goals with operational realities

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has emerged in recent years, especially in Europe, as a science policy framework that (a) seeks to align technological innovation with broader social values and (b) supports institutional decisions concerning the goals and trajectories of research and innovation under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. Rather than relying simply on consumer choice and market mechanisms on the one hand, or risk-based regulation on the other, RRI seeks to determine what constitute the goals, purposes and trajectories of (and alternatives to) technoscience and innovation, and thus the directions towards which these should be oriented, suggesting that these should be underpinned by shared public values. In addition to this overall philosophy of RRI, the European Commission has focused on five constituent policy keys (sometimes called pillars) of RRI that have their historical roots in the Science-in-Society programme; namely societal engagement, gender in research, open access, science education, and ethics. Action on these keys is seen as integral to an RRI approach and to Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. A further issue in the European context concerns how to ‘federate’ the RRI community in the EU and promote institutional changes to foster RRI in research institutions (a topic addressed at the European Commission RRI conference in Rome November 2014). This implies engaging stakeholders, research organisations, universities, funding agencies and public authorities in RRI. Some European research conducting and research funding organisations have begun to make formal policy commitments to RRI; others have developed RRI programmes and others still have embedded explicit RRI elements within broader programmes of emerging technologies and innovation. The European Commission’s ‘open to the world’ agenda implies involving non-European countries in the RRI discourse. However, beyond Europe, in emerging economies in the Global South (Brazil, India and China) and also in some advanced economies (Japan, Australia), there is little awareness of the concept of RRI, although some elements of the EC’s constituent keys have been taken up as thematic priorities by national research organisations. Considerable work needs to be done before RRI is recognised as a concept that offers traction in non-European contexts and research initiatives. There is a dearth of research that has assessed the challenges, efficacy and impact of the ongoing programmes on RRI, partly due to a lack of standardised methodologies that would be required to produce comparative results, and partly because these initiatives are themselves quite new. The project Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice), funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 Science-with-and-for-Society programme (grant no 709 637), is an attempt to respond to this situation. The RRI-Practice project intends to advance European and global awareness of RRI, support its implementation in practice and provide a solid empirical knowledge base on RRI implementation. The main aim of RRI-Practice is to analyse RRI related discourses and pathways to implementation, including barriers and drivers, in a number of research conducting and research funding organisations worldwide, in order to identify, understand, disseminate and promote RRI implementation best practices that can be scaled up at European and global levels. The project started September 2016 and has so far concentrated on mapping the national RRI discourse in the 12 partner countries. As part of this work, national workshops have been held. This paper will present the analytic concept of the project and the results from the workshops, and will reflect on challenges identified in the work so far.

The term „Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)” has been increasingly used for over a decade. The RRI concept is not currently well defined. The theory of RRI is not developed enough and there are still conceptual divergences. This paper introduces the issue of Responsible Research and Innovation and addresses the following key questions: How do we define RRI? Where do we stand in terms of understanding the RRI dimensions presented in literature? What is the role of RRI in the university technology transfer activity? The study is based on literature search on the Scopus (www.scopus.com), EBSCO (www.ebsco.com), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) and Google Books (books.google.com) databases to obtain articles published in peer reviewed journals, related to the concept of RRI and technology transfer. The search terms (for title and topic) were: responsible innovation, responsible research and innovation, RRI, technology transfer. Critical analysis of the state of knowledge allowed to propose a set of seven conceptual dimensions (inclusion, anticipation, responsiveness, reflexivity, sustainability, care and economic) of the Responsible Research and Innovation concept that may be implemented in technology transfer processes executed at universities. RRI concept is still under development. A discussion around the conceptual dimensions of RRI will be followed by the strategic challenges of universities. The study resulted in two conclusions. Firstly, the RRI concept may shift the focus of TTOs (Technology Transfer Offices) from outcomes (revenues, cash flow, rate of return, patents, license fee, etc.) to processes, which further leads to the second conclusion, that all seven presented conceptual dimensions should indicate particular types of processes in university TTO. Fulfillment of these two conclusions makes possible to implement RRI on University in a wider perspective, than just fulfill the requirements of administrative funders.

Background Whilst Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles are increasingly informing and shaping Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) research narratives and practices, the training of higher education (HE) STEM students in RRI is still developing, creating a mismatch between training provision and sector practices and expectations. Purpose Training of HE STEM students in RRI principles is a key component of the long-term changes RRI frameworks hope to achieve. However, little is known about postgraduate (PG) students’ awareness of, perceptions of and attitudes towards RRI, despite the pedagogical implications. This paper offers grounded insights and recommendations to shape this emerging area of pedagogical research and practice. Sample Forty-nine PG STEM students with a range of nationalities enrolled in six UK higher education institutions. Most students had not received prior formal RRI training, although a small number of students who had received some RRI training were selected for comparative purposes. Design and methods An exploratory, small-scale student-led, mixed-methods study that investigated PG STEM students’ engagements with RRI. Key objectives were to assess awareness and knowledge base; explore attitudes towards RRI; gauge the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RRI engagement; identify student preferences in relation to RRI training. Results The data points to the importance of individual characteristics and cultural backgrounds in shaping students’ engagement with RRI, as well as the significance of the context of student engagement with RRI. Although generally unaware of formal RRI frameworks, respondents provided examples of RRI that were drawn from national/cultural contexts. The perceived relevance of RRI varied with training level (Masters’ or PhD). A preference for interactive training in RRI was expressed, with some students commenting on the challenge of becoming reflexive practitioners. Conclusions This study provides important evidence to inform the pedagogical approach to RRI in HE STEM training, which the authors argue ought to be supported, reflexive, relevant, and interactive.

ABSTRACTThe relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al.’s [Van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation] essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors’ claim that RRI would be ‘a next step of TA’ or even a ‘form of TA’. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay.

ABSTRACTIn the last decade, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has earned a prominent position in policy spheres by offering forward-looking approaches and a framework for reflecting on the societal impact of research and innovation. Nevertheless, RRI remains an immature and relatively narrow area of inquiry, with a top-down approach and guided by standardized principles. Further, the field lacks focus on how researchers, firms and other actors actually perform responsible research and innovation. By unveiling the heterogeneity of responsibility practice, this special issue broadens RRI’s scope in two ways. First, by expanding RRI’s narrow focus on the research processes towards an approach that also takes into account how new knowledge and new ideas are becoming research-based innovations in society. Second, by including a wider spectrum of responsible innovation processes, and not only those that are research-driven. This special issue includes 10 investigations of heterogeneous responsible innovation practices that cross sectors and regions. Using the lessons these contributions teach, we close the issue with suggestions for a new multidimensional, multi-scale avenue for RRI.

This article explores two research questions through a case study of U.S. biotechnology oversight: why visions of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) are difficult to implement in governance systems for emerging technologies, and how to get policies and programs to overcome barriers to RRI implementation on the national policy agenda. Recent research on barriers to RRI is first reviewed to categorize the types of barriers. Key barriers center around meso- and macro-level institutional and societal forces that disincentivize RRI in innovation systems, as well as micro-level attitudinal and capacity barriers. These barriers point to policy changes that are likely needed to implement RRI in governance systems, in particular incentives for RRI from national funding organizations. However, getting RRI on the policy agenda for biotechnology may be difficult given macro-level socioeconomic and political forces. Therefore, the article uses insights from policy process theory to identify possible ways to get RRI on the national policy agenda. It identifies several ways to promote RRI in national policy-making, such as shifting the policy image of RRI, changing policy venues to encourage RRI, expanding the scope of RRI as a policy issue, and catalyzing focusing events to raise national awareness about RRI.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a key concept in current discourses concerning research governance and policy. The practice of Ethics Management in the European Union (EU) Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) Flagship Human Brain Project (HBP) utilises a concept of ‘meta-responsibility’ in order to further RRI. This chapter will explain the theory and practice of meta-responsibility to demonstrate RRI in practice in the HBP. As a Flagship EC research project, the HBP represents a particular opportunity to espouse the best aspirations of the European research area. In this chapter, particular focus is given to responsible research and innovation as it is theorised and implemented within the HBP. This article focusses specifically on the role and practice of ethics management in the RRI efforts of the HBP. As such, it presents a truncated and incomplete view. This is unavoidable, given the complex nature of the area – the map is not the territory. Other perspectives are possible, from which other aspects of RRI, and of the HBP overall, might gain or lose emphasis. Nevertheless, here is presented an ethics management perspective on, and role in, RRI so far in the HBP.

This paper investigates the relationship between Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and chemistry / chemical engineering education at university level. It does so by describing the genealogy of the RRI concept as well as outlining three different interpretations of what RRI refers to and combining them into the hexagon model of RRI. This model constitutes the theoretical framework for this work. The second part of the paper addresses how the science and engineering education research literature has embraced insights from RRI. The hexagon model of RRI explicitly includes a dimension on (science and engineering) education, and this paper will contribute to this dimension by investigating and discussing how research literature can link RRI and tertiary chemistry and chemical engineering education. The paper shows that very limited work has been done to liaise chemistry higher education and chemical engineering education with the RRI framework. In the concluding section of the paper, we discuss how the reported educational experiences on RRI in STEM can be translated into higher education in chemical engineering and chemistry. Hereby a proposal to fill the identified knowledge gap is made. The core of the paper is conceptual, and its central purpose is to introduce RRI to a chemical engineering and chemistry ethics education audience. As mentioned, the RRI approach has gone largely unnoticed within engineering ethics education, and only received limited attention within ethics of chemistry education. We hope that these research communities will find it inspirational to get involved in the RRI framework and to actively enact RRI insights.

Smart farming (also referred to as digital farming, digital agriculture and precision agriculture) has largely been driven by productivity and efficiency aims, but there is an increasing awareness of potential socio-ethical challenges. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach aims to address such challenges but has had limited application in smart farming contexts. Using smart dairying research and development (R&D) in New Zealand (NZ) as a case study, we examine the extent to which principles of RRI have been applied in NZ smart dairying development and assess the broader lessons for RRI application in smart farming. We draw on insights from: a review of research on dairy technology use in NZ; interviews with smart dairying stakeholders; and the application of an analytical framework based on RRI dimensions. We conclude that smart dairying R&D and innovation activities have focused on technology development and on-farm use without considering socio-ethical implications and have excluded certain actors such as citizens and consumers. This indicates that readiness to enact RRI in this context is not yet optimal, and future RRI efforts require leadership by government or dairy sector organisations to fully embed RRI principles in the guidelines for large R&D project design (what has also been referred to as ‘RRI maturity’). More broadly, enacting RRI in smart farming requires initial identification of RRI readiness in a given sector or country and devising a roadmap and coherent project portfolio to support capacity building for enacting RRI. Additionally, methods (such as RRI indicators) for operationalising RRI must be adapted to the context of the national or sectoral innovation system in which smart farming is being developed.

IntroductionBy a series of calls within the Horizon 2020 framework programme, the EU funded projects intended to deploy Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) at a territorial level, in regional research and innovation ecosystems. This paper presents efforts to document and evaluate the achievements in TRANSFORM, one of these projects.MethodsEvaluative inquiry and theoretical reasoning.ResultsNoting the need for a general principle to be interpreted, adapted and translated in order to be rendered meaningful at a local level, we studied precisely these multiple territorial translations of RRI, the organizational and institutional orderings with which they co-emerge and the challenges that come with these translations. An important shared feature is that RRI work does not start from zero, but rather builds on pre-existing relationships and repertoires of collaboration. The RRI project is hence a way to continue ongoing work and follow pre-set purposes, aims and objectives, as a form of “maintenance work”. In this very human sense, RRI is deployed with a logic of care in the regional context, while the Horizon 2020 calls and proposals above all are formulated in a logic of choice, to be assessed by indicators.DiscussionWe warn against undue standardization of RRI by toolification and use of quantitative indicators, and recommend that RRI performance is monitored by methods of evaluative inquiry.

This paper explores how reflexivity can portray Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) practices within university innovation spaces (UIS). While RRI has gained prominence, the challenge lies in translating framework programs to everyday practices in smaller innovation environments. This is crucial because RRI aims to align scientific research with societal needs, and effective assessment is essential for its appropriation. The research question addressed is: how can university innovation spaces use reflexivity to portray their engagement with RRI? Using an action research approach, this study was conducted in a French UIS. The methodology involves qualitative methods to critically examine practices across RRI dimensions. The findings present a comprehensive portrayal of the case in terms of RRI and offer new insights into the use of reflexivity as a portrayal tool. Additionally, the study highlights the hybrid governance model that this space follows, balancing collaborative ideals and institutional realities. The methodology offers two contributions: (1) a flexible assessment rationale for small and medium-sized organizations implementing RRI, addressing the limitations of indicator-based evaluations, and (2) insights into governance models within innovation spaces. The implications include expanding RRI literature by demonstrating how reflexivity can operationalize and assess RRI, advocating for qualitative and context-sensitive approaches.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is taking a role to assist all types of stakeholders including industry to move research and innovation initiatives to responsible manner for tackling grand challenges. The literature on RRI focuses little on how industry can implement RRI principles. In solving such gap in the literature, this article constructs a solid framework that provides a conceptual starting point for future research on levels of RRI. It draws a fundamental path to align industrial activities with environmental and societal needs. The framework develops a normatively grounded conceptual path for managing and assessing RRI principles in industry. This study depicts five successive RRI implementation stages and exhibits three RRI dimensions that represent different categories and corresponding indicators for that. The rationale behind this framework has been derived from extant models of corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature. Drawing on these models, this study develops stages and dimensions of RRI for discussing why industry should become engaged in RRI, how industry can embed RRI principles into research and innovation processes, how companies progress from one RRI stage to another, and how industry can manage all RRI dimensions systematically.

Introduction. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is increasingly crucial for addressing societal challenges and promoting sustainable economic growth. While RRI principles have been institutionalized in Europe, gender equality (GE) within this framework remains underexplored. GE policy in the European Union (EU), rooted in gender mainstreaming since 1999, addresses socially constructed roles shaped by intersecting factors like race and class. Recognized as a human right and vital for sustainable development, GE enhances participation, eliminates barriers, and integrates gender perspectives into research. This study examines the integration of GE within the RRI framework to address this gap. Method. A two level bibliometric analysis was conducted using Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, focusing on English-language, open-access articles published between 1985 and 2024. Following the application of exclusion criteria, a total of 2134 documents were analyzed, comprising 2045 in Phase 1 and 89 in Phase 2. Analysis. The analysis revealed a significant underrepresentation of GE within the RRI discourse. Despite a growing interest in RRI, there is a lack of meta-analytical studies focusing on GE, with research predominantly addressing broader aspects of RRI. Results. From the 2134 documents analyzed, only 89 explicitly addressed GE within the RRI context. Co-occurrence networks identified four primary RRI clusters emphasizing sustainability, governance, education and ethics. GE related keywords formed smaller, peripheral clusters, indicating marginal representation. The findings underscore a lack of systemic integration of GE into the broader RRI framework. Conclusions. The study highlights the critical need to prioritize GE within the RRI agenda by embedding it across all its dimensions. Addressing this gap will enhance the inclusivity, societal relevance, and ethical alignment of RRI initiatives. Policymakers and institutional leaders must champion GE as a foundational element of RRI to advance sustainable and equitable innovation.

BackgroundPromoting Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a major strategy of the “Science with and for Society” work program of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. RRI aims to achieve a better alignment of research and innovation with the values, needs, and expectations of society. The RRI strategy includes the “keys” of public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, and science education. The Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2) project promotes RRI in 6 European research institutions and universities from Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Poland, and the United Kingdom, in partnership with a further 6 institutions from Brazil, Denmark, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States.ObjectiveThe project aims to attain RRI structural change in 6 European institutions by implementing action plans (APs) and developing APs for 3 non-European institutions active in the field of biosciences; use the implementation of APs as a learning process with a view to developing a set of guidelines on the implementation of RRI; and develop a sustainable model for RRI in biosciences.MethodsThe project comprises interrelated research and implementation designed to achieve the aforementioned specific objectives. The project is organized into 6 core work packages and 5 supporting work packages. The core work packages deal with the implementation of institutional APs in 6 European institutions based on the structural change activation model. The supporting work packages include technical assistance, learning process on RRI-oriented structural change, monitoring and assessment, communication and dissemination, and project management.ResultsThe project is funded by Horizon 2020 and will run for 4 years (May 2016-April 2020). As of June 2018, the initial phase has been completed. The participating institutions have developed and approved APs and commenced their implementation. An observation tool has been launched by the Technical Assistance Team to collect information from the implementation of APs; the Evaluation & Assessment team has started monitoring the advancement of the project. As part of the communication and dissemination strategy, a project website, a Facebook page, and a Twitter account have been launched and are updated periodically. The International Scientific Advisory Committee has been formed to advise on the reporting and dissemination of the project’s results.ConclusionsIn the short term, we anticipate that the project will have a considerable impact on the organizational processes and structures, improving the RRI uptake in the participating institutions. In the medium term, we expect to make RRI-oriented organizational change scalable across Europe by developing guidelines on RRI implementation and an RRI model in biosciences. In the long term, we expect that the project would help increase the ability of research institutions to make discoveries and innovations in better alignment with societal needs and values.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/11745

This paper focuses on attitudes towards responsible research and innovation (RRI) and the approaches of business organizations, in that this emerging concept anticipates and assesses the various effects of research and innovation practice. The importance of this issue is highlighted by recent scandals in the automotive industry (and elsewhere). Much of our attention is devoted to corporate responsibility in the fields of research and innovation — an important value that goes beyond research. Our investigation was based on 27 case studies relating to companies from 14 European countries. The selection criteria went beyond those used most frequently in RRI studies, covering fields wider than emerging techno-sciences. This explorative research makes it easier to comprehend the feasibility and importance of empirical research. This feasibility study is a first step in obtaining relevant knowledge about the progress of European companies moving towards responsible research and innovation. The cases investigated show the existing dimensions and mechanisms of RRI in creating and identifying the barriers hindering RRI. The analysis has shown that RRI is little known as a comprehensive concept in companies, but many address RRI topics under other concepts such as CSR or sustainability. Altogether, several features of RRI are well covered by large European companies, and differences in business RRI activities and their scope may be explained by variations in the character of the entities concerned (size, owner-ship, industry). The novelty of this paper lies in its investigation into the business practices of RRI, not only as a whole, but by opening up ‘the black box’ to see which elements are more mature and which need further improvement. It also uniquely illustrates how different business characteristics influence the treatment of various RRI dimensions.