Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry: Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

(1)

Enhancing Socially Responsible

Innovation in Industry

Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical

Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

Steven Maarten Flipse

(2)

(3)

Enhancing Socially Responsible

Innovation in Industry

Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical

Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft;

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op 21 januari 2013 om 10.00 uur

door Steven Maarten FLIPSE Ingenieur in Life Science & Technology

geboren te Spijkenisse.

(4)

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. dr. P. Osseweijer

Copromotor:

Dr. M.C.A. van der Sanden

Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector Magnificus, voorzitter

Prof. dr. P. Osseweijer, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. M.C.A. van der Sanden, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof. dr. J.H. de Winde, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof. dr. ir. I.R. van de Poel, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. dr. S.W.F. Omta, Wageningen University & Research Centre Prof. dr. M. Bucchi, Università di Trento, Italië

Dr. W. Mosmuller, Koninklijke DSM N.V. Reservelid:

Prof. dr. J.T. Pronk, Technische Universiteit Delft

This thesis is the result of a research project of the CSG Centre for Society and Life Sciences, carried out within the research programme of the Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation in The Netherlands at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology & Society (BTS), funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI) / Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

Editors: Marieke Boerma & Karin Berkvens Cover design: Nikki Vermeulen, Ridderprint B.V. ISBN: 978-90-5335-604-3

(5)

Don’t believe everything you think… Flipse_PROEF (all).ps Front - 3 T1 - BlackCyanMagentaYellowPANTONE 280 C

(6)

(7)

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry

Preface

This PhD thesis is titled ‘Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry –

Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology.’ It presents the outcome of various studies, aiming to answer the

question how considerations of social and ethical aspects of innovation by researchers in industry can improve the quality of R&D practice, focusing specifically on the field of industrial Life Science & Technology (LST). The presented studies rely explicitly on collaborative approaches between a researcher from the social sciences, i.e. the author of this thesis, and corporate researchers from the field of industrial LST.

These studies subsequently focus on how and why considerations of social and ethical aspects could be integrated in R&D practice, whether such integration can practically be established, how such integration works, to what extent social and ethical aspects contribute to the measurable quality of R&D work, and whether integration leads to a measurable change in that quality. Based on the outcomes of these studies, the thesis presents a tool with which R&D practice can be technically improved and also become more socially responsible, by explicitly taking considerations of social and ethical aspects into account.

The studies presented in this thesis have been carried out at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology & Society. It is the result of a research project of the CSG Centre for Society and the Life Sciences, carried out within the research programme of the Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI) / Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

(8)

(9)

Chapter 1

Introduction

(16)

1

Introduction

(17)

1

1 Introduction

Our society is becoming more and more bio-based. In the future ‘post-oil era’ (Langeveld et al. 2010) we will resort to industrial Life Sciences and Technology (LST) to obtain biofuels, biomaterials and biochemicals, using microbiological production and processing systems based on agriculturally produced resources. These bio-based products potentially have a lower environmental impact than their petrochemically produced alternatives, since only natural resources are used and hardly any toxic waste produced. Still, as these products rely on vast quantities of agricultural resources, their production and use are also associated with a potential loss of biodiversity, further increasing world hunger because there is possibly less room for production of food crops, and depletion of nutrients.

Currently, many of these bio-based products are being discovered, developed and perfected. Mostly this is done by researchers who work at specialised public and private Research and Development (R&D) organisations. Researchers’ close proximity to the development of these products places them in the position to foresee possible consequences – in terms of both benefits and risks – of these products. Based on their expertise and insight they may have the capability to steer bio-based innovations in a more socially desirable direction. Because of the large role that researchers play in the development of bio-based products, they may to some extent be considered responsible for the development and deployment of these products. Policy makers call on researchers to do their best in identifying the possible consequences associated with the use of these products. They therefore promote socially responsible innovation methods. This implies that researchers, who carry out R&D work, are charged with a certain responsibility to society. This entails, among other things, a thorough deliberation on social and ethical aspects of innovation practices and the consideration of the possible consequences of their discoveries and developments. However, research has shown that researchers are generally unaware of these aspects and unable or even unwilling to predict the possible consequences (Fisher & Miller 2009; Owen & Goldberg 2010; Patra 2011).

Using various case studies from the field of Life Science & Technology (LST), this thesis presents a study exploring how researchers from this field can be stimulated to exert their social responsibility, and presents a practical tool that can be deployed in industrial R&D environments to help researchers do so. The key is sought in the consideration of social and ethical aspects of innovation during R&D, which could

(18)

1

Introduction

This introduction provides the general rationale for the presented study. First, industrial Life Science and Technology is presented as the context in which the research presented in this thesis is carried out. Hereafter, a brief analysis of policy development and scientific and technological controversies in this field are presented. Next, the concept of social responsibility is presented, followed by an elaboration on the specific responsibilities of individual researchers. Then the role of studies from the social sciences on responsibility in R&D practice is presented. This introduction ends with a display of the overall aim of this study and the research questions that will be answered in the subsequent chapters.

1.1 Industrial Life Sciences and Technology

Many pleasures in life we owe to LST. Think about culinary delicacies, like Belgian beer, Spanish chorizo, French wine, Italian balsamic vinegar, Dutch cheese, Vietnamese fish sauce and Japanese soy sauce. These are all made using biological production processes, based on fermentation processes with micro-organisms. Also the large-scale production of medicines such as penicillin and insulin relies on such biological production methods. In the future, we will not resort to LST for many pleasures in life, but for most pleasures. Fossil fuels resources are depleting slowly but surely. Future generations will use such industrial LST1_{to produce fuels and plastics, in addition to}

the production of food and medicine. As such, it is hard to think of any future product or production process, which does not use knowledge and experiences from LST.

Industrial LST relies on biological resources (primarily from plant materials) and uses micro-organisms to produce a wide range of products. E.g., the production of alcohol from corn, using yeasts that transform sugars plant material into bioethanol. Algae can convert sunlight and CO2 into biodiesel. Bacteria can convert sugars into

vitamins or fatty acids, which can be added to food ingredients to make them more nutritious. Such LST innovations provide numerous benefits to society, especially in comparison with petrochemically produced alternatives: using LST there is potentially less (or none at all) CO2 emission, which indicates a lower environmental impact, and

less contribution to the greenhouse effect, global warming and acid rain. In addition, biological production methods generally do not produce toxic waste.

1_{Industrial LST may be defined as the application of knowledge and experience in ‘modern}

biotechnology’ for the research, development and production of chemical substances and bioenergy, using biological raw materials and environmentally friendlier processes with low non-toxic waste production and reduced energy consumption in comparison with petrochemical alternatives.

Modern biotechnology refers to a number of techniques which involve the controlled generation of

(19)

1

1.2 Controversies in industrial Life Sciences and

Technology

While the possibilities of products based on industrial LST may seem beneficial for society, innovations from this field are not always received with much public and political enthusiasm (Nisbet & Huge 2006; Marks et al. 2007), possibly for good reasons. Industrial LST based innovations have raised and continue to raise public concerns. During the second half of the 1990s, societal resistance increased against the use of technology based on Genetic Modification (GM2_{, a technique frequently}

deployed in industrial LST), particularly against GM crops used for the production of foods. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth protested against GM based innovations introduced by large multinational organisations such as Syngenta and Monsanto (Flipse & Osseweijer 2012). Public appreciation of biotechnology was at an all-time low at the turn of the millennium, as measured by the Eurobarometer of the European Commission’s Public Opinion Analysis sector (Gaskell 2012).

At the origin of (both moral and rational) public concerns were (among other things) a lack of regulation on the labelling of GM products, and scientific uncertainty about the possible drawbacks and benefits of the use of LST (Bauer & Gaskell 2002). GM technology only emerged in the 1970s and can therefore be considered a relatively new field. Environmental impact had not been assessed yet during the late 1990s’ ‘years of controversy’ (Gaskell et al. 2001). Legislation on labelling was just starting to be implemented and rather unclear at that time (Craddock 2004). E.g., for GM potatoes it was obvious that they contained GM materials and had to be labelled as such within the European Union. Yet for vitamins made by GM bacteria, the purified vitamins themselves do not contain any GM materials, and are undistinguishable from those made by plants, or by unmodified bacteria. More clear labelling regulations have been implemented within the EU in 2004, yet by that time most GM based products had already disappeared from the supermarket shelves (Sleenhoff & Osseweijer 2008).

What remains debatable is the extent to which industrial LST based innovations are beneficial for society. E.g., biofuels production may rely on GM crop varieties. Such crops may have higher yields, but are also argued to possibly have a negative

2_{Genetic Modification may be defined as the directed changing of an organism’s genome (DNA). Using} various techniques available in the field of modern biotechnology, DNA is introduced (from biological

(20)

1

Introduction

influence on biodiversity, endangering the existence of other plant species, and other insects and animals. This risk/benefit debate has been reviewed extensively (Ammann 2011). Yet other arguments, unrelated to GM technology, also play a role in the debate on the pros and cons of industrial LST. E.g., the production of crops for fuels and other LST based products also requires energy input, and the ‘crude’ biological oil also needs to be processed and converted into useable fuels. This may render the production of biofuels much less ‘sustainable’ than one may think upfront (Anton & Steinicke 2012; Nelson 2012). Also, crops used for LST based products are also argued to contribute to inequality in developing countries (which may or may not be the case, see Morse

et al. 2007) and land-grabbing practices, which may further broaden the gap between

rich and poor (Duvail et al. 2012; Arduino et al. 2012). Possibly ancient rain forests are sacrificed to make room for arable land, releasing much CO2 that is stored in these

rain forests (Wicke et al. 2008; Flipse & Penders 2012). This may contribute to global warming and reduce the natural habitats of indigenous species, further endangering their existence. To continue, moral and religious concerns have been articulated about GM technology, such as that it is unnatural to temper with nature (Zwart 2009) and that our environment should be protected for it has instrumental or inherent moral value (Brumsen 2012)3_.

1.3 Social responsibility for industrial Life Science &

Technology based companies

The possible effects of industrial LST on our society and environment remain uncertain. In so far as social impact and ethical assessments of industrial LST based innovations are possible, these depend on the context of development and deployment. Such assessments, pertaining to e.g. environmental sustainability, health, public needs, values and opinions, intellectual property and funding interests (see e.g. Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Barling et al., 1999; Hessels et al., 2009) are difficult to regulate with official laws and directives. This does not mean that such aspects are to be ignored, particularly not in the light of socially responsible innovation: during the last decade, policy makers have devised policies and guidelines, stimulating innovators to actively consider such social and ethical aspects in the development and deployment

3_{Apart from concerns on industrial LST, there are also concerns related to medical applications of LST.} These are found e.g. in debates about the development of specific treatments for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, pertaining e.g. to embryonic stem cell research and cloning. While the development and application of such treatments may not be primarily industrial but rather medical LST,

(21)

1

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry of innovations4_{(European Group on Ethics 2007; European Commission 2011a), also}

in the field of LST (PBL 2012).

Such policies are relevant for academic research environments, yet can be considered especially important for private innovators. Industrial LST based companies directly influence how innovations from this field are produced and can be used. In their R&D facilities, LST based innovations get their first and final shape. More than half of all R&D within the EU is carried out in companies, both in number of researchers and amount of money spent annually (European Commission 2011b). In addition, industry gets more and more involved in academic research endeavours, e.g. through public-private partnerships.

Because of their role in development of innovations, one may argue that companies are to some extent responsible for the innovations’ development, and their deployment in society (Verbeek 2006). Bovens (1998) distinguishes two main types of organisational responsibility, namely passive and active responsibility. In passive kind concerns responsibility in the sense of accountability, mostly in a legal context. Central terms describing such responsibility are causal connections and blameworthiness, and the question is “who bears the responsibility for a given state of affairs. The central

question is ‘Why did you do it?’” (Bovens 1998:27). In contrast, active responsibility

entails responsibility as a virtue, where the central question is ‘what is to be done?’ Bovens describes that the requirements for exerting such responsibility are: an adequate perception of the possibly threatened violations of the current norms in society; a consideration of consequences of actions; a certain autonomy to act responsibly; codes of conduct; and taking seriously the obligations for exerting responsibility.

Companies may exert their ‘Corporate Social Resonsibility’ by considering e.g. the environmental impact of their products or the labour conditions of producers. Much has been written on what CSR may entail5_{(for summaries and reviews, see}

Orlitzky et al. 2003; Marquez & Fombrun 2005; CIMA 2010) and why companies

4_{The difficult social and ethical assessment of LST based innovations makes it largely impossible to} consider them as either good or bad. The potential benefits of LST innovations can be balanced against the potential drawbacks. This seems to be the case for all New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST, see e.g. Lucivero et al. 2011), including nuclear energy, information technology and nanotechnology. Already in 1938, the American sociologist Robert Merton (1938: 284) argued that “[t] he goods of science are no longer considered an unqualified blessing.” NEST is not always inherently good (Thomas 1996), and “its effects ramify into other spheres of value and interest” (Merton 1938: 284). As such, there is inevitably a certain impact of LST R&D on society.

5_{Corporate Social Responsibility may be defined as the continuing self-commitment of organisations} (possibly integrated into a business model) to have a positive, contributory effect on society. Such a positive effect on society may relate to e.g. the environment, but also to economical welfare and labour

(22)

1

Introduction

should behave socially responsible (McWilliams & Siegel 2001; Campbell 2007). Yet the question how such responsibility can be exerted in R&D practice, during the development of new industrial LST based innovations, remains unanswered.

1.4 Responsibility of LST researchers

Organisations as such cannot exert any responsibility without the proper channels. Eventually, people need to act responsibly (cf. Davies 2008). The people who are in the position to meet Bovens’ requirements for active responsibility seem to be the researchers, working at the R&D facilities in industrial LST based companies. They can recognise the norms in society and relate those to their on-going work, and consider these in their actions. Researchers have a certain autonomy to act responsibly, codes of conduct are probably in place and they could take their obligations for exerting their responsibility seriously. The policy guidelines, encouraging the active integration of social and ethical aspects in innovation processes, are meant to stimulate organisations and their employees in exerting Bovens’ active responsibility.

For the responsible development and deployment of industrial LST innovations, LST researchers6_{are ones who may be expected to include social and ethical aspects}

in their work. Ultimately, they are the ones who (co-)shape new LST products and production processes. Because LST innovations can have a direct influence on society, e.g. affecting behaviour of citizens or their lifestyles, it is argued that researchers have an obligation to communicate their work to society in an understandable way (SIRC 2001; Groffman 2010; Chuck 2011), that it is their permanent moral duty to participate in discussions about the role of science in society and the consequences of their work (Verhoog 1981), and that reflections on the ethical and social relevance of science should become an integrated part of the ‘ethos’ of science (Ziman 1998). Some even argue that there is “an implicit societal demand for more sustained and pragmatic

attention” to enhancing the linkages between innovation and societal implications

(Guston & Sarewitz 2002: 94), and that societal viewpoints have to be acknowledged as legitimate by researchers (Jackson et al. 2006).

Researchers’ R&D choices and decisions directly or indirectly influence how new innovations will be used. As such choices and decisions are made during R&D work, policy makers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities now

6_{These researchers may come from different LST disciplines (including microbiologists,}

metabolic pathway designers and engineers, geneticists, fermentation specialists, etc.), and may range

(23)

1

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry stress that social and ethical aspects should be integrated also during R&D practice (European Group on Ethics 2007; European Commission 2011a; PBL 2012; Fisher et

al. 2006; Wilsdon 2005; Guston & Sarewitz 2002; Van der Burg 2009). R&D actors

should do this ‘timely’ (Von Schomberg 2011), early on in innovation development, in order to adapt technology to society’s needs (Doorn 2012; Swierstra & Rip 2007). Possibly even as early as possible, “to develop science in society perspectives from the

very beginning of the conception of their activities” (European Commission 2007:18).

However, the relevant social and ethical aspects are frequently not considered during technological development processes (Russel et al. 2010). Researchers are often unaware of the broader social and ethical context of their work, and sometimes even trained to explicitly ignore such context (Burningham et al. 2007; Fisher & Miller 2009; Patra 2011). Institutions may discourage or even restrict researchers to collaborate with outsiders (Whitmer 2010). Communication to ‘outsiders’ such as members of the public, is sometimes even considered difficult or dangerous, a negative experience for researchers (Davies 2008). Researchers and their managers may lack incentives to deploy socially responsible R&D practices, taking social and ethical aspects into account (Doorn & Fahlquist 2010). Possibly they are preoccupied with the technical sides of their work (Swierstra & Jelsma 2006). In addition, even though much has been written on responsible innovation and corporate social responsibility, practical means specifically designed for researchers to deploy responsible innovation practices, remain virtually absent and uninvestigated in (corporate) innovation management literature.

1.5 The role of scholars from the social sciences and

humanities

Policies and guidelines drafted by policy makers, calling for more socially responsible innovation practices, have created expectations for researchers in LST industries: they are the ones to take social and ethical aspects into account during their R&D practices (Fisher et al. 2006). To facilitate and incentivise LST researchers to establish such integration during their work, scholars from the social sciences and humanities have embarked on various activities in collaboration with these LST researchers. Activities such as workshops, future technological scenario workshops and consensus conferences, carried out as part of Public Dialogue or Technology

(24)

1

Introduction

Assessment approaches7_{, have brought researchers in contact with other societal}

actors’ viewpoints, coming from representatives from NGOs, but also citizens, policy makers and other non-scientific experts (Jackson et al. 2005; Whitmer et al. 2010).

The first of these activities in the industrial LST field, appearing in the late 1990s, aimed to allow the public to become more acquainted with LST R&D. It was hypothesised that much of the public controversy existed because of public misunderstanding of LST (known now as the ‘deficit model,’ cf. Wynne 2006), and that educating the public about the potential benefits of LST would increase their appraisal of future products. Therefore, activities were designed by scholars from the social sciences and humanities, which aimed to allow the public to become more engaged with new scientific and technological development (Lewenstein 2003), focusing primarily on the outcomes and societal consequences of science and technology (Lengwiler 2008). Some of these activities were designed specifically for LST innovations (Terlouw et al. 2002). Yet the extent to which such activities have been successful is debatable: publics are not so easily interested in R&D practices (Burningham et

al. 2007; Delgado et al. 2010), and public appraisal of LST innovations definitely

did not become solely more positive (Gutteling et al. 2001; Gaskell et al. 2012). These activities used innovations which were already finished as case studies, allowing the public to become acquainted with existing technology, rather than allowing public viewpoints to be included in R&D projects on future innovations. So, focus of scholars from the social sciences and humanities shifted to the actual development of LST products and processes (Webster 2007; Rogers & Hayden-Pidgeon 2007; Lengwiler 2008; Delgado et al. 2010). Using ‘Technology Assessment’ methods (Schot & Rip 1997), based on e.g. in-depth discussions between researchers and citizens, policy makers, and members of NGOs, about the potential impact of technology on society, these methods aimed to allow researchers to become familiar with public viewpoints, rather than the other way around. Such viewpoints could then be used in actual R&D work. Simultaneously, potentially societal fears of technocracy could be taken away (Verbeek 2006). However, these discussions focussed on potential risks and benefits of future technology, possibly blurring the relation of possible social and ethical aspects to current R&D practices (Nordman 2007; Nordman & Rip 2009). Moreover, the link between such Technology Assessment activities and actual R&D practice remained ‘fuzzy and unclear’ (Wilsdon & Willis 2004).

7_{These approaches and their appropriateness for establishing the integration of considerations of social}

(25)

1

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry As such, recently the focus of scholars from the social sciences and humanities again shifted, towards approaches that took actual R&D processes, as a dynamic process with individuals (Pauwels 2011), as a starting point rather than assessments of potential impacts and societal viewpoints (Editorial 2009). In more collaborative approaches between these scholars and researchers from the natural sciences, the interaction between the two over the period of various months, allowed for the integration of considerations of social and ethical aspects of innovation in R&D practices (Fisher & Mahajan 2006; Penders 2008; Van der Burg 2009; Schuurbiers 2011). Yet still, historically, scholars from the social and natural sciences have misunderstood one another (Snow 1959; Manning & Fischer 2010), possibly hindering successful collaborations between the two (Macilwain 2009). Also, it remains largely unclear what entitles scholars from the social sciences and humanities to intervene in R&D processes (Stegmaier 2009). In addition, only a limited number of approaches to establish such integration is presented in scientific literature. Practical tools and guidelines for LST researchers are lacking. Also, the impact of such collaborations on the quality of innovations, e.g. in relation to industrially relevant Key Performance Indicators of R&D projects, remains to be assessed.

1.6 Aim of this study

Both timing and methods are of major importance for establishing integration of considerations of social and ethical aspects to allow researchers to exert their social responsibility. Pertaining to timing: when too early, innovations are not developed far enough to examine their possible societal implications, and when too late, there is no room anymore to influence innovations, since major design decisions have already been made8_{. Pertaining to the methods: allowing the actual integration of social and}

ethical aspects during R&D practice by LST researchers remains a challenge (Guston & Sarewitz 2002; Genus Coles 2005; Fisher 2007).

There are only limited examples of successful integration of social and ethical aspects during R&D practices (Fisher 2007; Schuurbiers 2011) and more research into these aspects is needed (Kaiser 2012). Also, activities aiming to establish such integration have taken place mainly in academic R&D environments (Fisher & Mahajan 2006; Burningham et al. 2007; Patra 2011; Penders & Nelis 2011), while industrial R&D has remained largely uninvestigated (Penders et al. 2009a). This despite the facts that the lion’s share of innovation development takes place in industry (Shapin 2008; European Commission 2011b) and that industrial actors are closer to

(26)

1

Introduction

actual applications and possible repercussions (Shelley Egan 2010). Also, corporate science and potential conflicts of interest playing there, continue to be a focus of public concern (Wilsdon & Willis 2004). In addition, the extent to which innovation practices may improve through such integration, from the perspective of researchers, has not yet been investigated.

Clear implementation methods for social and ethical considerations remain absent (Fisher & Mahajan 2006). The ‘black box’ of technology development should therefore be opened up to further understand where and how considerations on social and ethical aspects can have an effect in such development (Verbeek 2006; Swierstra & Jelsma 2006), and how activities aiming to do so can be used constructively (Webster 2007; Owen & Goldberg 2010), e.g. in the form of a practical tool relating social and ethical aspects to R&D quality. Therefore, the overall aim of the study presented in this thesis is to explore to what extent corporate researchers in the field of industrial LST can be enabled to exert their social responsibility to actively include considerations of social and ethical aspects relating to LST innovation, in order to improve their R&D practices.

1.7 Research questions

The sections above highlight that to enhance socially responsible innovation, it is imminent that researchers start to consider social and ethical aspects during their R&D activities. This thesis presents a way of enhancing this social responsibility along with R&D process quality by integrating considerations on such aspects in R&D work. Therefore, the main research question and the subsequent sub-research questions this thesis aims to answer, are as follows.

Main research question:

How do considerations of social and ethical aspects of innovation by corporate researchers measurably improve the quality of R&D practice in industrial LST?

Sub-research questions:

1. Why would researchers in the field of industrial LST include considerations on social and ethical aspects in their R&D

work?

(27)

1

2. How could the integration of considerations of social and ethical aspects in R&D practice by researchers in the field of industrial LST be established?

3. To what extent can researchers in the field of industrial LST be enabled to include considerations on social and ethical aspects in their current R&D practices?

4. How can considerations of social and ethical aspects by LST researchers become an integrated part of current R&D practices?

5. To what extent do social and ethical aspects contribute to the measurable quality of R&D practice in LST industry?

6. How does the integration of considerations of social and ethical aspects by researchers in LST industry measurably change the quality of their current R&D practices?

1.8 Thesis outline

The sub-research questions will be answered subsequently in the remainder of this thesis9_{. Chapter 2 presents a literature overview, to survey the why and how for the}

integration of social and ethical considerations in light of social responsibility of researchers, as presented in social sciences, humanities and innovation management literature. It explores first which methods have been deployed in earlier research to establish such integration in R&D practice. Second, it explores why LST researchers may want to include social and ethical considerations in their work. Last, it argues how integration activities could be deployed most successfully in R&D practice, aligning existing methods with motives and requirements to consider social and ethical aspects from the perspective of researchers.

Chapter 3 reports the findings of a case study in one LST company, Royal

DSM N.V., of which its industrial LST R&D centre is located in Delft, the Netherlands. In the presented case study, a method called ‘Midstream Modulation’ (MM)10_{, first}

presented in 2006 by Erik Fisher (Fisher 2006) is used. MM aims to achieve inclusion of considerations on social and ethical aspects in a collaboration between individual

9 _{The research questions that are addressed in the subsequent chapters have been modified to fit the} journals and fields in which the chapters have been submitted for publication. The sub-research questions presented above do make up the central themes in the subsequent chapters, yet the actual answers to these sub-research questions are given in Chapter 9.

(28)

1

Introduction

researchers and a scholar from the social sciences/humanities, in this case the author of this thesis. While the use of MM has been demonstrated earlier in academic laboratories in the field of nanotechnology and biotechnology, its functionality in LST industry is not self-evident. The study presented in this chapter therefore explores the functionality of MM in an industrial LST environment, to establish to what extent five individual researchers could be stimulated to include considerations on social and ethical aspects in their daily work, and the relevance of doing so for themselves and their company. Furthermore, it is assessed whether such integration could become an institutionalised, standard part of R&D practice.

Chapter 4 further elaborates on the case study conducted at DSM. Yet this

chapter goes one step further by providing an in-depth analysis of the functionality of MM in establishing the integration of considerations of social and ethical aspects by researchers in R&D practice. Furthermore, it investigates MM as a framework for explaining how such integration is established, and provides a novel view of three sequential stages of MM, being de facto, reflective and deliberate modulation.

Chapter 5 explores the relation between R&D project success and social and

ethical considerations. This relation is clarified in a case study conducted at NIZO Food Research B.V., a Dutch contract research organisation in the field of foods and food production processes. Using a project scoring and evaluation tool based on the Wageningen Innovation Assessment Tool (WIAT) developed by Fortuin & Omta (2007), the role of social and ethical aspects in relation to R&D project Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is elucidated. Using a survey approach based on 72 questionnaires, representing 36 successful and 36 less successful R&D projects, previous projects are scored by NIZO employees for 54 potential success items. Using statistical analysis methods, these items are clustered into KPIs. The effect of social and ethical considerations on those KPIs was subsequently discussed with employees, to clarify the relevance and potential use for R&D practice.

Chapter 6 continues on the relationship between project success and social

aspects and project success with a second case study at NIZO. The chapter presents a study in which MM is applied to a group of five researchers, while project success is monitored using the modified version of the WIAT, developed in the study presented in the previous chapter. Chapter 6 concludes with the introduction of a project Success Factor based LST Innovation Project Scoring and Evaluation tool, with which project KPIs can be aligned with considerations of social and ethical aspects, thereby aiming to improve project success.

(29)

1

Chapter 7 reflects on the used research approach, by pointing out various dos

and don’ts in engaging in collaborative research practices, based on the experiences gained in the studies presented in this thesis. In addition, it introduces the concept of a ‘collaborative space’ where researchers from the natural and social sciences interact in order to achieve more socially responsible innovation practices. The chapter also presents various recommendations for future researchers who may aspire to participate in collaborative research endeavours.

Chapter 8 summarises how, based on the outcomes of the research presented

in this thesis, social responsibility is exerted in R&D practice in collaboration between LST researchers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities. Using a graphical representation on how researchers from both cultures move from coexistence to collaboration, it describes, on an organisational level, what are the various boundary conditions for successful collaborations in private R&D environments.

Chapter 9 presents the general discussion and conclusions of this thesis. It

starts by presenting the answers to the sub-research questions. Hereafter the answer to the main research question is given. Next the tool that was introduced in Chapter

6 is further discussed in the light of the answer to the main research question and its

potential to operationalise socially responsible innovation in industry. Subsequently the results of the studies presented in this thesis are discussed in the light of their scientific and societal relevance and possible limitations, accompanied by suggestions for further research.

(30)

(31)

Chapter 2

The Why and How of Enabling

the Integration of Social and

Ethical Aspects in Life Science &

Technology Research and

Development

This chapter has been accepted for publication as:

Flipse, S.M., Van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Osseweijer, P. 2012. The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Life Science & Technology Research and Development.

Science & Engineering Ethics.

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Prof. dr. ir. Ibo van de Poel for critically reflecting on earlier versions of this manuscript.

(32)

2

The Why and How of Enabling Integration

Abstract

New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) based innovations, e.g. in the field of Life Sciences or Nanotechnology, frequently raise societal and political concerns. To address these concerns NEST researchers are expected to deploy socially responsible R&D practices. This requires researchers to integrate Social and Ethical Aspects (SEAs) in their daily work. Many methods can facilitate such integration. Still, why and how researchers should and could use SEAs remains largely unclear.

In this chapter we aim to relate motivations for NEST researchers to include SEAs in their work, and the requirements to establish such integration from their perspectives, to existing approaches that can be used to establish integration of SEAs in the daily work of these NEST researchers. Based on our analyses, we argue that for the successful integration of SEAs in R&D practice, collaborative approaches between researchers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities seem the most successful. The only way to explore whether that is in fact the case, is by embarking on collaborative research endeavours.

Relation to previous chapter

The previous, introductory chapter illustrated the potential relevance of social and ethical aspects for researchers, and the possible role of social scientists in initiating and encouraging integration of such aspects in R&D practice by researchers. This current chapter explores why researchers would want to include such aspects in their work, and which methods are presented in literature with which such inclusion may be established.

(33)

2

2 The Why and How of Enabling the Integration

of Social and Ethical Aspects in Life Science &

Technology Research and Development

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Research context

Most New and Emerging Science & Technology (NEST), including life sciences, nanotechnology, nuclear energy and information technology, appear to raise political and societal concerns. Already in 1938, Robert Merton wrote that “[t]he goods of

science are no longer considered an unqualified blessing” (Merton 1938:284).

Precisely because innovations have a certain effect in society, responsible NEST based innovation requires that the benefits of science and technology are assessed in relation to the possible drawbacks in the full social context of the innovation. Policy makers devised regulations and guidelines encouraging NEST researchers to consider that context by taking into account relevant Social and Ethical Aspects (SEAs, European Group on Ethics 2007; European Commission 2011a; PBL 2012; 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act 2003). Science and technology actors, including NEST researchers, are encouraged “to develop science

in society perspectives from the very beginning of the conception of their activities”

(European Commission 2007:18). Nevertheless, researchers do not usually actively and consciously include SEAs in their daily work, neither in academia (Fisher & Miller 2009; Patra 2011), nor in industry (Burningham et al. 2007).

Incentivised by policy makers’ calls for the integration of SEAs, scholars from the social sciences and humanities (social scientists11_{) have developed methods}

to facilitate NEST researchers to include such aspects in and during R&D12_activities

(see e.g. Fisher et al. 2006; Delgado et al. 2010), in the hope and expectation that his would help to create a “more accountable model of science and innovation” (Wilsdon 2005:29). Numerous approaches have been proposed and devised, including

11_{In the remainder of this article, we will refer to these scholars from the social sciences and} humanities (sociologists, philosophers, ethnographers, humanists, science and technology studies

practitioners, engineering ethicists, etc.) as ‘social scientists.’

12_{In this article, we consider R&D practices to be phase the innovation processes where researchers work} on the scientific and technological aspects of the innovations. In that sense, innovations are considered the outcome of R&D practices. We realise that innovation processes also contain other phases (e.g. authorisation, marketing, sales, maintenance), but to remain within the aim and scope of this article we

(34)

2

Constructive Technology Assessment (Schot & Rip 1997), Real-Time Technology Assessment (Guston & Sarewitz 2002), Ethical Parallel Research (Van der Burg 2009) and Midstream Modulation (Fisher 2006). Still, practical experience with such initiatives remains limited.

2.1.2 Chapter aim and structure

The limited experience in SEA integration in R&D practice has shown that it may indeed be possible to establish such integration to some extent (see e.g. Lengwiler 2008; Delgado et al. 2010). Nevertheless, in existing approaches, the question what are the benefits for the participating researchers is mostly omitted ex ante. Societal and policy relevance of SEAs integration are stressed, and the relevance for researchers is largely omitted. Yet regardless of why policy makers and social scientists want researchers to include SEAs, we think there are good motives for NEST researchers themselves to do so.

Existing literature on the integration of SEAs in R&D work provides various motives. In this chapter we aim to identified motives for NEST researchers to include SEAs in their work, and the requirements to establish such integration from the perspective of NEST researchers, to existing approaches that can be used to establish integration of SEAs in the daily work of these NEST researchers. The possible perspectives of these NEST researchers on such motivations and requirements play a central role in our analysis. We first elaborate on the relevance of SEAs for R&D practice (Section 2.2). We then summarise various methods covered in literature which facilitate the integration of SEAs in R&D practice (Section 2.3). Next, we explore motives for researchers to integrate SEAs in their R&D practice and possible constraints for such integration (Section 2.4). Hereafter, we explore requirements for successful integration, seen from the perspective of researchers, based on existing literature on previous SEA integrative methods (Section 2.5). Subsequently we investigate to what extent these potential motives and conditions for successful integration are represented in existing approaches for SEA integration, by arguing on a scale of likeliness whether it is unlikely, possible, probably or very likely that the described methods align with the identified motivations and requirements (Section 2.6). We end with considerations and recommendations on how to successfully integrate SEAs in R&D practice (Section

2.7).

(35)

2

2.2 The role of SEAs in R&D practice

Academic and industrial R&D environments are under transformation (Hessels et al. 2009). Academic R&D is increasingly conducted in partnerships with private investors. Simultaneously researchers are more pressed to account for the use of taxpayer’s money (Fuller 2009), demonstrated e.g. in the explicit request to indicate societal use and relevance in R&D funding proposals. Concomitantly, industrial researchers are expected to develop state-of-the-art technical innovations, in a socially responsible way. The outcomes of their R&D work should positively influence corporate image and corporate social responsibility, by providing e.g. more sustainable and/or healthier products. Such contemporary R&D can be classified as ‘postnormal’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1993), with ‘Mode 2’ characteristics (Nowotny et al. 2003).

Especially in specialised NEST fields (such as synthetic biology, where biological production systems are designed rather than discovered) the boundaries between ‘research’ and ‘development’, between ‘science’ and ‘technology’ have blurred. One cannot speak anymore of ‘scientist,’ ‘designer’ or ‘technologist,’ so we chose to use the term ‘researcher.’ NEST researchers are to take into account more considerations than purely scientific and technological ones, relating to e.g. intellectual property, environmental sustainability, (corporate) social responsibility, communication, teamwork, collaborations and public opinion (Barling et al. 1999; Hessels et al. 2009). They are expected to adopt ‘responsible research and innovation’ (Von Schomberg 2011) practices, for which taking SEAs into account is a prerequisite.

2.3 Methods to integrate SEAs in R&D practice

Many activities designed for SEA consideration in R&D practice have focused on the role of citizens and other non-experts. Such public engagement and public communication activities have been reviewed earlier (Lengwiler 2008, Delgado et al. 2010). In contrast, we take NEST researchers and their practices as a starting point, rather than stakeholders external to R&D practice and review the role of researchers in literature on SEA integration.

(36)

2

2.3.1 Public dialogue

The first category of methods we cover, we characterise as ‘Public Dialogue’ (PD). PD methods provide a way to take societal concerns, values, priorities and institutions into account in scientific and technological developments, in order to “find the

common language and understanding, and to inform the ways in which all people, scientists and non-scientists alike, think about the priorities, directions, implications and consequences of science” (Jackson et al. 2005:353). The role of researchers, as

scientific experts, is to connect the laboratory to the ‘world outside’ (Radstake et

al. 2009). Practically, PD means for groups of people (researchers and other

non-scientific experts) to come together and discuss NEST. This is claimed to enable the informing of interested publics early in NEST development, while also enabling researchers to sense and respond to public interests and concerns (Jackson et al. 2005). Involving non-specialists as partners in R&D provides a way for researchers to interact with society (Whitmer et al. 2010). Thereby researchers can learn about SEAs and anticipate and accordingly shape their R&D and possibly also market introduction strategies (Schot & Rip 1997). Activities used in PD approaches include e.g. consensus conferences, citizen juries, focus groups, public consultations and workshops.

2.3.2 Technology assessment

Next we consider ‘Technology Assessment’ (TA) approaches. The overall aim of TA is to “reduce the human costs of trial and error learning in society’s handling of new

technologies, and to do so by anticipating potential impacts and feeding these insights back into decision making, and into actors’ strategies” (Schot & Rip 1997). Various

TA approaches include Constructive TA, Integrative TA, Participatory TA, TA in Social Context, Real-Time TA, and others. TA is mostly used as a philosophy, a rationale under which actual engagement activities with researchers and other, (non-)scientific (non-)experts are carried out. Some of these approaches start from the perspective of allowing societal input in technological development. E.g., in Participatory TA (Durant 1999) the central question is how society can be represented in R&D, and initiatives have been analysed mainly with a focus on the exercise itself (Marris et al. 2008), without an explicit focus on researchers and their responsibilities.

In other approaches researchers do have a more explicit role. E.g. TA in Social Context (Russell et al. 2010:110) aims to “inform and engage stakeholders to improve

understandings of technology in its social contexts and seeks to increase democratic Flipse_PROEF (all).ps Back - 18 T1 - BlackCyanMagentaYellowPANTONE 280 C

(37)

2

input into decision making,” thereby seeking to “shape technology and social settings, not only via formal decision making avenues, but also by changing the way people think about technology and society.” Similarly, Constructive TA concentrates on

dialogue among and early interaction with new actors in technology development to broaden the design of new technologies, by feeding TA activities’ outcomes back into this technology development. Van Merkerk & Smits (2008) have described and applied a 3-step CTA approach, where information is given to the participants first, followed by the development of future technological scenarios, which are subsequently discussed in dialogue workshops. The role of researchers is to provide information and discuss with others their viewpoints on the (desirability of the) developed scenarios. But, as Berloznik & Van Langenhove (1998) argued earlier, CTA remained a practice outside the laboratory: it does not necessarily involve researchers during R&D.

In contrast, Integrative TA has been defined as a research practice “in

which during the actual performance of the R&D process, the researchers reflect on and if possible study the societal consequences of their research” (Berloznik

& Van Langenhove 1998:30). This reflection should feed back into on-going R&D work, which is projected to avoid negative and unwanted consequences, and thereby perform more efficient and effective research. A similar TA approach that relates to researchers directly is Time TA, which is embedded in R&D processes. Real-Time TA uses public opinion polling, focus groups, dialogue and scenarios, but also content analysis on (changes in) knowledge and perceptions. It aims to “elicit values

and explore alternative potential outcomes,” to “enhance communication and identify emerging problems,” and to render innovation “more amenable to understanding and, if necessary, to modification” (Guston & Sarewitz 2002:98). In its proposed aims and

methods it appears to be the most all-encompassing and most elaborately described in relation to daily research practice. It is explicitly designed for the ‘mid-level,’ the R&D environment13_{. In both the Integrative and Real-Time approach, the role of researchers}

is to reflect on SEAs, thereby influencing their own R&D, possibly helped by their managers or (professional) consultants, with certain procedures.

13_{The R&D process may contain three distinguishable phases, which have been illustrated by Schuurbiers} & Fisher (2009). In the downstream phase of R&D, the central question is how to adopt and deploy R&D outcomes. In the upstream phase, it is asked what R&D to fund and carry out. On the midstream (mid-

(38)

2

2.3.3 Collaborative approaches

PD and TA approaches rely on the contributions of researchers, but also require a mediating party (usually a social scientist) that organises the various interaction activities, such as focus groups and workshops. This mediator can potentially contribute to R&D work, but PD and TA literature does not explicitly reflect on the contributions of these mediators. In contrast, approaches exist in which social scientists are taking a more explicit role in the establishment of the outcome of R&D work, collaborating with researchers at their working floor, rather than only contributing (Calvert & Martin 2009). In contrast to PD and TA approaches, these ‘collaborative’ approaches rely explicitly on a reciprocal exchange of expertise: the role of the researcher is to consider SEAs in their work, while simultaneously the collaborating social scientist becomes more acquainted with R&D work. We describe three approaches that rely explicitly on close collaboration between NEST researchers and social scientists.

First, in Ethical Parallel Research, social scientists (e.g. ethicists) embedded in laboratories collaborate with the present researchers, in order to offer possibilities to take broader SEAs into account during R&D (Van der Burg 2009). The role of the researchers is to interact with a social scientist: through repeated interaction between the researcher and the social scientist, the social scientist can become a (trusted) insider, who can attune the ‘soft impacts’ to the specific context of R&D (Van der Burg 2010). Together they can find ways to use SEAs (highlighted by the social scientist) in a constructive way, relevant to R&D (as assessed by the researcher).

Second, ‘sensitisation’ is a similar strategy to invoke reflection on SEAs in researchers, through engagement to ‘wider social imaginations’ (Wilsdon et al. 2005), e.g. through ‘repeated exposure’ (Penders et al. 2009a:207-208) to a social scientist and the SEAs (s)he brings into the collaboration. Sensitisation has the potential to become contagious, in a sense that sensitised researchers may sensitise others. The power of the approach lies in its reciprocity: both the social scientist and the researcher learn about one another’s worlds and viewpoints, and both have to cross the boundaries between science and society (Penders et al. 2009a).

Third, a more elaborately described method (both in methodological guidelines and in working principles) is Midstream Modulation (MM, Fisher 2006). In MM, a social scientist (‘embedded humanist’) interacts regularly with researchers for a period of 3 months. The focus of MM is not necessarily on societal concerns, but rather on R&D decisions (Schuurbiers & Fisher 2009). The R&D decisions of

(39)

2

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry researchers are modulated into subsequent opportunities, considerations, alternatives and possible outcomes (Fisher 2007). Such opening up of researchers’ decisions allows the social scientist to pinpoint specific possibilities to link these decision modulators to context relevant SEAs. Once researchers have become aware of the SEAs relevant to their R&D practice, they can start to actively integrate them by themselves (Fisher & Mahajan 2006; Schuurbiers 2011).

2.4 Motivations to integrate SEAs in R&D practice

Next we explore why researchers may want to take SEAs into account during their R&D activities, and which challenges must be overcome to allow researchers to integrate SEAs relating to identified motivations14_{. We first describe normative, responsibility}

related motives. Second, we describe motivations related to society and the role of R&D in society. Third and last we describe reasons relating to R&D practice15_.

2.4.1 Normative perspective: enhanced reflexivity on SEAs for researchers

It has been suggested that researchers should include SEAs in their R&D practices, as they carry a responsibility to society for doing so (see e.g. Berloznik and Van Langenhove 1998). Rip (1981) already noted that defining ‘the’ social responsibility of researchers is impossible, yet we can consider various responsibilities that may be ascribed to researchers. Verhoog (1981) argued that it is the permanent moral duty of all researchers to participate in discussions about the role of science in society, and the consequences of scientific discovery. Ziman (1998) argued that ethical reflection should become part of the ‘ethos’ of science. Bovens (1998) described the difference between active and passive responsibility. Passive responsibility is the accountability for researched or developed artefacts, whereas active responsibility relates to the deployment of responsible R&D practices. Doorn & Fahlquist (2010) have further elaborated on this, stating that it is more fruitful to stimulate researchers to adopt a more forward looking, active responsibility, focusing on the duties needed for responsible innovation (and responsible R&D herein) practices (Doorn 2012).

Yet the relevance of ethical aspects for responsible R&D can be made more explicit for researchers. Reflecting on ethics could improve researchers’ ethical

14_{We review various motivations covered in literature. We cannot claim to be 100% complete in our} review, yet we can indicate most important trends and suggestions in literature.

15_{Our distinction of different motivations shows parallels to earlier analyses, distinguishing between} substantive, normative and instrumental rationales for public engagement activities (see e.g. Stirling

(40)

2

sensitivity, knowledge on relevant standards of (responsible R&D) conduct and improve ethical judgment and willpower (Davis 2006). Technological artefacts (as outcomes of technological development) co-shape our world, and as researchers develop such artefacts, they can (and arguably have the obligation to) consider connections between context of design and context of use (Mitcham 1994;Verbeek 2006; Swierstra & Jelsma 2006), e.g. pertaining to environmental impacts, economy and quality of life.

To consider SEAs in R&D practices, researchers need the ability to recognise and reflect on these aspects (Patra 2011). However, they are often unaware of the broader social and ethical contexts of their work (Fisher & Miller 2009) and as such, have difficulties identifying societal impacts (Owen & Goldberg 2010). Consequentially, usually researchers do not consider SEAs by themselves, possibly also because they are preoccupied with their own “specialized research problems and small circles

of sponsors, colleagues, and rivals” (Brunner & Ascher 1992:296). The challenge

therefore is to encourage researchers to start to identify and consider SEAs.

Yet issues could be identified and considered, but quickly dismissed and discarded afterwards (Johnson 2007). The results of such reflection should have an effect on R&D practice, feeding back into on-going research practices (Doorn & Fahlquist 2010). Awareness on the SEAs of R&D is a logical precondition to doing things ‘differently’ (Fisher et al. 2006), more responsibly. In that sense, as Rip (2009) argues, being reflexive is better than not being reflexive. Enhanced reflexivity on SEAs is not about societal stakeholders standing over the shoulders of researchers, yet about “bringing about the public within” researchers by enabling them to reflect on the social and ethical dimensions of their work (Wilsdon 2005:25). The use of ethical aspects is to address possible issues during the development of technology. The understanding of the social and ethical context may not always lead to ‘better’ R&D decisions, but may help reveal the social and ethical bases of R&D decisions, leading to a more transparent and accountable decision making process (Wilsdon 2005). As such, the prospective for researchers to obtain skills to reflect on SEAs in a manner that is both useful and relevant for them (Flipse et al. 2012), placing themselves in a wider, societal frame (Rip 2009)16_{, can be a motivation for researchers to consider SEAs.}

16_{These normative reasons may be of limited value to industrial R&D. Corporate R&D is not funded} by public money. Still, there are reasons for industrial researchers to take into account SEAs. A broader set of SEAs in R&D could help increase corporate social responsibility (Wilsdon & Willis 2004). Notwithstanding, some may argue that companies only exert social responsibility for its (in) direct effect on turnover and profit (cf. Marshall & Toffel 2005), or as a form of risk management. Possibly, reasons for such integration are neither purely idealistic, nor purely economic, but a balance

(41)

2

2.4.2 Societal perspective: enabling researchers to communicate about their R&D work

As the public has concerns about technological developments (Collins & Evans 2002), and academic research is still to a large extent funded by public, taxpayer’s money, it is argued that researchers carry responsibility to address the public’s concerns (Editorial 2004; Osseweijer 2006). In addition, since innovations affect society (Guston & Sarewitz 2002), societal actors should possibly have a say in which research activities researchers embark on. Beckwith & Huang (2005) argued that if society is to remain in step with technology, researchers should know about the social and ethical implications of their research. Naturally, researchers can only take into account public input, if they have learned which considerations and concerns actually play a role. Reciprocally, the societal actors can only appraise technological developments if they know about them first (Stirling 2008). Therefore, researchers should communicate their activities and findings (SIRC 2001). But why would they want to communicate their results, and why would they allow society to have a say in what they do?

Researchers can possibly only build ‘public value’ if they take seriously the constraints and choices that they face (Wilsdon et al. 2005; Guston & Sarewitz 2002), pertaining to the social and ethical context of their work. Knowledge developed through ‘engaged’ research, taking into account multiple actors and viewpoints, is most likely to become socially accepted, relevant to policy and environmentally friendly (Overdevest et al. 2004). In addition, allowing societal input e.g. through the inclusion of outsider perspectives, is also a way to ‘democratise’ R&D (Van de Poel 2000; Nowotny 2003). Such democratisation may pertain to joint discussions on the future we want (enabled and facilitated by science and technology), where to put priorities and how applications and implications of science and technology should be governed and managed (Jackson et al. 2005), possibly meeting better societal design criteria (Van der Burg 2009). The consequences of letting the public help researchers on deciding how to spend government research funding should possibly be welcomed, not feared (Editorial 2004). E.g. societal assessments of new technology could ensure that newly developed innovations do not adversely affect health or the environment (Shatkin 2008).

Particularly in some NEST fields where public appreciation is relatively low, such as genetic engineering (Gaskell et al. 2011), researchers have may have something to gain from increased public appreciation of their technologies. Technologies can

Enhancing Socially Responsible Innovation in Industry: Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

Enhancing Socially Responsible

Innovation in Industry

Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical

Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

Enhancing Socially Responsible

Innovation in Industry

Practical Use for Considerations of Social and Ethical

Aspects in Industrial Life Science & Technology

Preface

Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1

Industrial Life Sciences and Technology

1.2

Controversies in industrial Life Sciences and

Technology

1.3

Social responsibility for industrial Life Science &

Technology based companies

1.4

Responsibility of LST researchers

1.5

The role of scholars from the social sciences and

humanities

1.6

Aim of this study

1.7

Research questions

1.8

Thesis outline

Chapter 2

The Why and How of Enabling

the Integration of Social and

Ethical Aspects in Life Science &

Technology Research and

Development

Abstract

Relation to previous chapter

2

The Why and How of Enabling the Integration

of Social and Ethical Aspects in Life Science &

Technology Research and Development

2.1 Introduction

2.2

The role of SEAs in R&D practice

2.3

Methods to integrate SEAs in R&D practice

2.4

Motivations to integrate SEAs in R&D practice