From Ethical Review to Responsible Research and Innovation

<p>Foreword ix</p>
<p>Introduction xiii</p>
<p>Chapter 1. Research Ethics Expertise 1</p>
<p>1.1. Introduction 1</p>
<p>1.2. Several possible areas to identify ethical issues 2</p>
<p>1.3. ERs in European projects 6</p>
<p>1.3.1. Review procedure 6</p>
<p>1.3.2. The work of evaluators in ethics 10</p>
<p>1.3.3. Research ethics in 10 issues 14</p>
<p>1.4. Limits of what is termed ethics investigation 20</p>
<p>1.4.1. Inflation of background legal texts for ethical principles lists 21</p>
<p>1.4.2. Closer to law than ethics 25</p>
<p>1.4.3. Fictitious separation between technical and ethical assessment 27</p>
<p>1.5. Moving to ethics 29</p>
<p>1.5.1. Morals and ethics, an issue of level of analysis 30</p>
<p>1.5.2. Pluralism of ethical theories 31</p>
<p>Chapter 2. Responsible Research and Innovation: a Composite and Ambitious Notion 35</p>
<p>2.1. Introduction 35</p>
<p>2.2. RRI According to the EC: variable geometry space 37</p>
<p>2.2.1. Participation of stakeholders 39</p>
<p>2.2.2. Gender equality 42</p>
<p>2.2.3. Open science 44</p>
<p>2.2.4. Scientific literacy 46</p>
<p>2.2.5. Governance and ethics 47</p>
<p>2.3. What are the relationships between RRI pillars? 48</p>
<p>2.4. RRI conceptions in research 50</p>
<p>2.4.1. RRI conditions 51</p>
<p>2.4.2. A RRI research program 55</p>
<p>2.5. Ethical reviews and responsible innovation 64</p>
<p>2.5.1. Tension between ERs and RRI 64</p>
<p>2.5.2. Are ER so far from RRI? 66</p>
<p>2.5.3. RRI an opportunity for ER? 66</p>
<p>2.6. Conclusion 68</p>
<p>Chapter 3. Responsibility: A Polysemous Concept 69</p>
<p>3.1. Negative understandings 72</p>
<p>3.1.1. Responsibility as blameworthiness (2) 73</p>
<p>3.1.2. Responsibility as liability (3) 74</p>
<p>3.1.3. Responsibility as accountability: the passive form (4a) 75</p>
<p>3.2. Responsibility: between excessive pressure and dilution 76</p>
<p>3.2.1. The lack of normative commitment 77</p>
<p>3.2.2. Dilution of responsibility 80</p>
<p>3.2.3. Understandings of responsibility with no agent 82</p>
<p>3.3. The example of scientists′ responsibility 84</p>
<p>3.3.1. The atom bomb: responsibility as blame and management ex post facto 84</p>
<p>3.3.2. Responsibility: the individual and the collective 89</p>
<p>3.3.3. The Aquila earthquake and the responsibility of scientists in helping to reach a decision 91</p>
<p>3.4. Conclusion 95</p>
<p>Chapter 4. Responsibility in Innovation and Research: The Need for Moral Innovation 97</p>
<p>4.1. Descriptive understandings of responsibility 99</p>
<p>4.1.1. Responsibility as task (or role) (5) and as authority (6) 99</p>
<p>4.1.2. Responsibility as capacity (7) 100</p>
<p>4.2. The normative understandings 101</p>
<p>4.2.1. Responsibility as moral obligation (8) 102</p>
<p>4.2.2. Responsibility as responsiveness (9) 103</p>
<p>4.2.3. Responsibility as virtue 105</p>
<p>4.3. Conclusion 112</p>
<p>Chapter 5. Governance Devices and RRI Put to the Test 117</p>
<p>5.1. Introduction 117</p>
<p>5.2. RRI premises in certain scientific projects 118</p>
<p>5.2.1. Case 1: when ethical is confused with legal 119</p>
<p>5.2.2. Case 2 participation as consultation 123</p>
<p>5.2.3. Case 3 in–depth but powerless ethical reflection 127</p>
<p>5.2.4. Case 4: When deliberation is not co–construction 130</p>
<p>5.2.5. Conclusive remarks for project analysis 134</p>
<p>5.3. Institutional design options for participation 135</p>
<p>5.3.1. The title of procedures 137</p>
<p>5.3.2. Social ontology 137</p>
<p>5.3.3. Margins and types of participation 138</p>
<p>5.3.4. Capacities, roles and virtues of participants 139</p>
<p>5.4. Hybrid and interinstitutional deliberations 141</p>
<p>5.4.1. The General Assembly for Bioethics (Etats g&eacute;n&eacute;raux de la bio&eacute;thique) (France) 141</p>
<p>5.4.2. European Meeting of Minds for the consideration of research on the brain 146</p>
<p>5.5. Participation, but what for? 151</p>
<p>5.5.1. Assessment of consequences and technical options 151</p>
<p>5.5.2. Extension of perspective for research and development policies 151</p>
<p>5.5.3. Agenda setting 152</p>
<p>5.5.4. Cartography of public scientific controversies 152</p>
<p>5.5.5. More interactive surveys 152</p>
<p>5.5.6. Covering all arguments 153</p>
<p>5.5.7. Reframing of the debate 153</p>
<p>5.5.8. Mediation 153</p>
<p>5.5.9. Recommendations for policies dedicated to new technological domains 154</p>
<p>5.5.10. New forms of governance 155</p>
<p>Conclusion 159</p>
<p>Bibliography 169</p>
<p>Index 183</p>