Framing responsible innovation in synthetic biology: the need for a critical discourse analysis approach

Abstract

Various framings of responsible innovation, some specific to synthetic biology and others more general, have emerged, evoking notions of responsibility in science and innovation. They are represented by a set of narratives that are far from stabilised, being subject to the ongoing debate and contestation. We aim to understand the emergence of discourses of responsible (research and) innovation and dynamics influencing them. This article proposes a critical discourse analysis approach to gain such understanding.

Keywords:

• responsible innovation (RI)
• synthetic biology
• critical discourse analysis
• politics of RI

The terms ‘responsible innovation (RI)’, ‘responsible research and innovation (RRI)', and ‘responsible development’ are interpretively flexible umbrella terms (Rip and Voß 2013) that evoke notions of responsibility (Pellizzoni 2004; Richardson 1999), science and innovation (Grinbaum and Groves 2013), and which are gaining considerable traction in both academia and policy. Various framings of RI and responsible development have been proposed over the last few years, some specific to synthetic biology (Clarke et al. 2012; PCSBI 2010) and others more general to technovisionary science, emerging technologies, and innovation (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013; von Schomberg 2011). Simultaneously, the last few years has seen the rise of ‘RRI’ as a policy driver in Europe (Rome Declaration 2014), where it has become a cross-cutting theme for Horizon 2020, the European Commission's key research and innovation funding instrument (Owen 2014a; Owen et al., 2012) and where it is increasingly being adopted by funding institutions in member states (e.g. Owen 2014b). The RRI turn has shifted emphasis from risk to innovation governance, and from a pre-occupation with impacts to include science and innovations’ purposes (agendas) and processes, seeking to empower social agency in technological choices (Stirling 2008), making these more participatory, inclusive, and publicly accountable (Jasanoff 2003), while enlarging the role responsibilities of researchers and research funders (Douglas 2003; Mitcham 2003).

RI/RRI has emerged from historical foundations well known in science and technology studies, from technology assessment in its various forms (Guston and Sarewitz 2002; Schot and Rip 1997) to ‘upstream public engagement’, values sensitive design and socio-technical integration, placing a premium on future-oriented dimensions of responsibility that include care (sometimes translated as a desire to align innovation to societal values) and responsiveness (to different perspectives and emerging information) (Richardson 1999). The desire for social alignment has been transcribed by von Schomberg (2011) into a quest for the ‘right impacts’ of science and innovation, which in turn questions extant models of representative and deliberative democracy and the role of various modes of participation in agenda setting (e.g. Jones 2008; Voices for Innovation n.d.). The term responsibility, over its history of more than 200 years, also includes concepts such as imputation (‘causes and consequences’) and accountability (‘intentions, affect, and understanding’), covering individual and collective domains. These present ‘overlaps with the historical genealogies of risk society, insurance, preparedness and precaution, … and prospective prudence’ (Kelty 2008, 2–3). This has been extended as a political concept to include considerations of (e.g. scientific) autonomy and science and society ‘rationalities’ (Glerup and Horst 2014), responsibility in its moral, epistemic, and political dimensions (Grunwald 2011) all of which are relevant to our quest for an understanding of the discourses and ‘politics of RI’ (van Oudheusden 2014; Owen et al. 2012). Most recently questions have also been raised concerning RRI's potential expansionism as a largely European and North American political artefact into the so-called developing world, where assumptions concerning science – innovation and society relationships cannot be readily made, where cultural representations of emerging technologies such as genetic modification have been highly resonant and where other formulations of innovation and responsibility abound (e.g. Pansera and Owen 2014), for example, around ideas of ‘inclusive’, ‘grassroots', or ‘empathetic’ innovation (Gupta 2012), set within broader, contested discourses of post-colonial development and post development thinking. In total RI/RRI presents as a set of emerging, pluralistic, sometimes hybridising narratives that, in a Foucauldian sense, have far from stabilised and which are the subject of debate and contestation. Our key research question is how are discourses of responsible (research and) innovation emerging and what (e.g. power) dynamics (Fisher and Rip 2013) are influencing these discourses?

The need for a critical discourse analysis approach

We propose here the need for a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach to understand, and critically reflect on, emerging discourses of R(R)I. Originating from linguistics, DA allows analysis of both written and oral forms of language-in-use and reveals power relations of different parties, uncovering the significance, practices (activities), identities, relationships, dynamics, and politics (including the distribution of social goods) (Gee 2011), associated with a certain discourse. There has to date been limited reflection on the ‘politics of RI’ (van Oudheusden 2014; Owen et al. 2012) and we aim to critically evaluate this using a CDA approach.

In doing so we propose a CDA framework based on an integration of the ‘10 steps for discourse analysis’ proposed by Hajer (2006) and a combined tool of the ‘building tasks of language’ and ‘context’ by Gee (2011). Two initial steps of Hajer's approach are desk research and document analysis (e.g. UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap and US PCSBI's report on synthetic biology) (Clarke et al. 2012; PCSBI 2010). Our future work will complement this with empirical work such as the conducting of interviews – (e.g. with companies and organisations working closely with synthetic biology) – to further explore the discourses emerging and circulating within the synthetic biology context; what we may call ‘discourses in the making’.

Discourses of RRI in synthetic biology: example themes

We are yet to conduct a thorough DA of R(R)I in synthetic biology, but a review of key documents (e.g. Clarke et al. 2012; PCSBI 2010) suggests several themes that such an approach might consider:

Social Alignment: as mentioned above, this theme has been transcribed as a quest for the ‘right’ impacts of research and innovation based, for example, on normative anchor points in the Treaty on the EU, which, to name but a few, include social justice, equality, and sustainable development (von Schomberg 2011). In the context of synthetic biology, the PCSBI report points out two similar principles: (1) public beneficence and (2) justice and fairness (PCSBI 2010). This also appears more generally in the language of ‘science for society’ emerging from the European Commission's RRI discourse.

Responsiveness: this theme is perceived as setting the direction, and influencing the trajectory and pace of innovation through effective mechanisms of inclusive and anticipatory science and innovation governance (Barben et al. 2008; Owen et al. 2013). In this regard, the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap (Clarke et al. 2012) calls for an ‘effective, appropriate and responsive regulatory framework’ to cope with ‘emerging evidence and changing social priorities’ and ‘emerging developments in synthetic biology’, whereas the PCSBI report calls for responsible stewardship (PCSBI 2010). This appears in the language of ‘science with society’ emerging from the European Commission's RRI discourse.

Collective Responsibility: innovation has been described as ‘knowledge spaghetti’ (Bessant 2013), and its collective, distributed nature demands a collective responsibility across the science and innovation system (von Schomberg 2013). This also refers to the political considerations of a group's conduct, regardless of the level of personal involvement of each individual (Grinbaum and Groves 2013). In the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap (Clarke et al. 2012), responsibility is, in this context, framed in terms of a systemic culture that needs to be built. There are also overtones of collectivity in the PCSBI report, which considers responsibility both at an individual and institutional level (PCSBI 2010), in turn demanding what Wynne has described as the need for ‘institutional reflexivity’ (Wynne 1993). Concepts of inter and trans-disciplinarity to support consideration of the moral, epistemic, and political dimensions of emerging technologies, as well as integrative approaches for shaping technological and innovation pathways, have also been introduced with regard to synthetic biology in the field of Technology Assessment (Grunwald 2011).

Anticipation: describing and analysing intended and unintended impacts (Owen et al. 2013), by methods that include technology assessment and foresight (von Schomberg 2013), and which build up anticipatory capacity (Guston 2013) is a constant theme that resonates in both the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap and PCSBI report.

The above themes are examples of potential themes to be explored in greater depth and detail to understand how R(R)I is framed in the context of synthetic biology. A CDA approach would serve such a purpose well as it provides insights of the meaning of language-in-use and its implications in the societal aspects.

Notes on contributors

Fujia Li is a fully funded PhD student at the University of Exeter Business School. His research interests lie in framings of the term Responsible Innovation (RI) under different national contexts and more broadly in ongoing construction of expectations around RI. He pursues his research by adopting a combined approach of case study, ethnography, and discourse analysis.

Richard Owen is Professor of Strategic Innovation Management and Associate Dean for Research at the University of Exeter Business School, where he has held the Chair in Responsible Innovation since 2010.

Elena Simakova is lecturer in Innovation at the University of Exeter Business School (UK). She is also serving as scientific director of the Policy Analysis and Studies of Technology Centre (PAST-Centre) at the National Research Tomsk State University, the Russian Federation, under the Open Society Foundations HESP programme. In her research, she is looking at governance of science and technology and implications for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Exeter Business School (fully-funded studentship to Fujia Li).