Responsible research and innovation (RRI)

About Responsible Research and Innovation

Why do we need RRI?

 

DallE generated: Rembrant image of a scientist trying to do no harm with the society in the background

Scientists are trained to excel in solving problems. In basic science, problems worthy of pursuing are often bound by assumptions of their scientific value. However, in life science, such problems, like the cure for cancer, less disease among farmed salmon, or understanding alzheimer´s disease are problems that are intrinsically linked to their societal value.

Researchers in the humanities and social sciences have extensively studied how science works in practice, how it is governed, as well as how technological systems are maintained and their safety assessed. According to this scholarship, choices made in science can have consequences beyond science as they become embedded into technologies and laws informed by science advice. Which issues merit investigation? How should a societal concern be translated into a researchable problem? What are the analytical choices underpinning a basic science instrument? Many of these choices are also about values. Visible values as in the amount of funding allocated to cancer research as opposed to tropical diseases, and less visible value because assays like genome sequencing reshape how we treat and make sense of illness.

Recognising that science isn’t a world of its own but exists as part of a society with whom it has many, complex interactions confers a social responsibility upon science. RRI is not about assigning this responsibility, it exists with or without RRI, but it provides instruments that can guide decisions in science to make them more robust and aligned with what society wants, needs and is prepared to embrace. 

There are a number of standards that govern research conduct like health and safety standards, ethics approval of experiments with animals and human subjects, and codes of research integrity. Unlike these standards (which it does not replace), RRI does not contain a moral code (e.g. ‘do no harm’), nor does it come with a checklist that defines responsible conduct. It is an open framework that points to practices (e.g. anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion etc.) that shall encourage researchers situate their research in the societal context. Moreover, it is crucial that these practices connect to decisions about how research problems are selected and investigated.

The Research Council of Norway (RCN) has published a Framework for Responsible Innovation (pdf). The Centre for Digital Life is at the forefront in putting this framework into practice. But it is not alone. The same framework also applies to the large-scale technology programmes Biotek2021, Nano2021 and IKTPLUSS. The ideas behind the framework have been developed by Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten (2012) and also underwrite RRI initiatives at research councils in the UK (e.g. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council). The framework provides four dimensions of RRI that scientists should relate for their research and innovation to be deemed socially responsible: 

  • Anticipation conveys that actors in science and innovation should map the plausible effects of their innovations, intended as well as unintended ones, and develop socially robust strategies to prevent harmful and undesirable outcomes. 
  • Inclusion encourages research and innovation actors to collaborate with potential users and other concerned actors of their products. They can provide valuable insights into contexts of application as well as opinions on desirable research trajectories. 
  • Reflexivity invites scientists to evaluate their own moral, political, and social assumptions as these too, influence the choice of research problems, methodology, and innovation design. 
  • Responsiveness urges scientists to restructure research and innovation trajectories if the feedback from stakeholders or public opinion show that present goals and planned actions are contrary to their expectations. This includes meeting not just societal needs but also societal desirability, and ethical acceptability of the research outcomes. The underlying question all researchers and innovators should ask themselves is: what kind of a future do we want to create through research and innovation?

This framework points to three challenges that RRI throw up for the research being done within these programmes (see Strand et al 2015): 

  1. RRI requires new forms of knowledge and skills – for scientists, innovators, and for stakeholders; 
  2. Institutions must adjust how they govern research and innovation in order to make space for those new forms of knowledge and skills; 
  3. RRI requires the governance of research and innovation to target the process (how) as well as the products (what) of innovation. Legitimacy is as important a goal of science governance as is safety.

Funding opportunities

See all opportunities