Why do newly industrialized economies deter to adopt responsible research and innovation?: the case of emerging technologies in Korea

Figures & data

Table 1. Barrier identified from literature

Category	Barrier	Operational definition
Economic Barrier	Increased innovation costs due to RRI implementation	RRI activities that involve various stakeholders incur additional costs and time. For example, anticipation of and reflexivity on the impact of technology, and interacting with stakeholders, both of which are important parts of RRI, can lead to additional costs. (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Chatfield et al. 2017; Genus and Stirling 2018; Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016).
	Lack of economic incentive to participate in RRI	Apart from the social demand for RRI, incentives driving RRI implementation are unclear (Chatfield et al. 2017; Dreyer et al. 2017; Gianni 2014; Gurzawska, Mäkinen, and Brey 2017; Lukovics et al. 2017).
Implementation Barrier	Lack of clarity and empirical RRI cases	A lack of both clear RRI concepts and empirical examples can limit the specificity of RRI implementation in a variety of innovative environments (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017; Carbajo and Cabeza 2018; Chatfield et al. 2017; Davis and Laas 2014; Dreyer et al. 2017; Genus and Stirling 2018; Gianni 2014; Gurzawska, Mäkinen, and Brey 2017; Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016; Monsonís-Payá, García-Melón, and Lozano 2017; Paredes-Frigolett 2016; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013).
	Lack of RRI training and expertise	Learning and training are important so that impacted professionals can both understand the need and develop a motivation for RRI adoption. Training and expertise are also necessary for determining the appropriate RRI implementation methods. In addition, RRI implementation requires the presence of certain professionals who can address the training and expertise needs (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Gianni 2014; Heras and Ruiz-Mallén 2017).
	Lack of organizational structure and suitable RRI culture	Integrating RRI into organizations and systems can be time consuming and labor intensive because RRI implementation requires that the existing practices and procedures change (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Chatfield et al. 2017; Geenhuizen and Ye 2014).
Policy & political Barrier	Increased bureaucracy with RRI implementation	The involvement of social scientists or ethicists in restraining the practice of existing laboratories may make scientists feel as though the administrative and bureaucratic procedures are increasing in complexity (Forsberg et al. 2018; Gurzawska, Mäkinen, and Brey 2017).
	Lack of clear RRI policies and unclear focus on RRI regulation	RRI can be used in private firms’ R&D strategies and in development of policies that support national R&D funding. However, the novelty of the RRI approach makes it unclear what form future policies and regulations will take (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Genus and Iskandarova 2018; Gianni 2014; Landeweerd et al. 2015; Paredes-Frigolett 2016).
	Lack of both trust and political leadership to lead RRI change	The RRI approach focuses on an improved integration of innovation in society through an increased responsiveness embedded in the system. This requires political leadership to drive RRI, and associated societal confidence in the changes it will bring (Dreyer et al. 2017; Wahlster et al. 2015).
Social Barrier	Lack of social acceptance and academic identity of RRI	A successful RRI implementation has to overcome society's existing routines, a capability which is far from certain (Davis and Laas 2014; Genus and Iskandarova 2018; Genus and Stirling 2018; Landeweerd et al. 2015; Lukovics et al. 2017; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013).
	Lack of experience with bottom-up governance	RRI emphasizes that the consequences of innovation may need to be discussed from social members’ perspective. However, there is a lack of policy experience with this type of social discussion system (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017; Genus and Iskandarova 2018; Gianni 2014; Gurzawska, Mäkinen, and Brey 2017; Landeweerd et al. 2015; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013).
	Conflicts of interest and a lack of stakeholder networks	In the absence of an effective network of experienced stakeholders involved in innovation, it may be difficult to find solutions when there is a conflict between the existing innovation approaches and RRI implementation (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Carbajo and Cabeza 2018; Chatfield et al. 2017; Davis and Laas 2014; Geenhuizen and Ye 2014; Genus and Iskandarova 2018; Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016).
Technical Barrier	Difficulty in understanding the emerging technologies	Emerging technologies can be difficult to understand, as they deviate from the stereotypes and routines of existing technologies (Landeweerd et al. 2015). This is important because an understanding of the technology is necessary before its externalities can be identified and evaluated.
	Difficulty in identifying the impacts of emerging technologies on society	By definition, emerging technologies are significantly different from existing ones, so it is difficult to predict how their unique methods and practices will impact society. Therefore, a barrier arises because it is difficult to know how to prepare for such impacts (Auer and Jarmai 2018; Chatfield et al. 2017; Genus and Iskandarova 2018; Genus and Stirling 2018; Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016).

Table 2. Research process for ranking RRI barriers by using AHP

Stage	Definition	Description
I	Structure the problem and a model	Building a model by decomposing the obstacles predicted for RRI implementation into 13 barriers through 5 criteria
II	Collect data through pair-wise comparison	Collect data based on a questionnaire on a 9-point scale A pairwise comparison matrix is constructed by pairwise comparing factors in the immediate lower hierarchy that contribute to achieving the goals in the higher hierarchy
III	Calculate normalized priority weights of individual criteria	Estimate the relative weights $\mathit{Y}$ of the barriers using the eigenvalue method: $\mathit{Y}=\mathit{A}w,\mathit{w}=\left(w_1,w_2,\cdots ,w_n\right),$where $\mathit{A}$ is a pairwise comparison matrix ($n\times n$), $n$ is the number of criteria, $\mathit{w}$ is the eigenvector ($n\times 1$) called as the priority vector Calculate principal eigenvalue ${\mathit{\lambda }}_{max}$ as follows: ${\mathit{\lambda }}_{max}=\frac{{\mathit{Y}}_1/{\mathit{w}}_1+{\mathit{Y}}_2/{\mathit{w}}_2+\cdots +{\mathit{Y}}_{\mathit{n}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{n}}}{\mathit{n}},$ Calculate a consistency index (CI) as follows: $CI=\left({\mathit{\lambda }}_{max}-n\right)/\left(n-1\right)$ Check the consistency of expert response by using consistency ratio (CR) as follows: $CR=\frac{CI}{RI},$where RI is random index given by Saaty (1994) and if CR is less than 10%, $\mathit{A}$ is considered to be consistent
IV	Analyze the priority weights and derive solutions	Establishing relative priorities of decision-making by comparing weights obtained for each category and barrier

Table 3. Number of respondents according to technology field and type of affiliation.

Number of respondents		Autonomous vehicle	Biotechnology	Total
Government	Ministry of Industry etc.	12	11	23
Industry	Major company	8	5	13
	Midsize Business	6	6	12
	smaller business	11	14	25
Academia	University	6	6	12
	Research Institute	7	7	14
Total		50	49	99

Table 4. Category rankings for RRI implementation.

Categories	Priority Weight	Rank
Economic barrier	0.277	1
Implementation barrier	0.177	3
Policy & political barrier	0.249	2
Social barrier	0.142	5
Technical barrier	0.155	4

* Note: CR = 0.001

Table 5. Barrier rankings within each category.

Category	Barriers	Priority Weight	Rank
Economic Barrier	Increased innovation costs due to RRI implementation	0.165	1
	Lack of economic incentive to participate in RRI	0.112	2
Implementation Barrier	Lack of clarity and empirical RRI cases	0.071	1
	Lack of RRI training and expertise	0.048	3
	Lack of organizational structure and suitable RRI culture	0.058	2
Policy/political Barrier	Increased bureaucracy with RRI implementation	0.049	3
	Lack of clear RRI policies and unclear focus on RRI regulation	0.101	1
	Lack of both trust and political leadership to lead RRI change	0.099	2
Social Barrier	Lack of social acceptance and academic identity of RRI	0.042	2
	Lack of experience with bottom-up governance	0.039	2
	Conflicts of interest and a lack of stakeholder networks	0.064	1
Technical Barrier	Difficulty in understanding the emerging technologies	0.060	2
	Difficulty in identifying the impacts of emerging technologies on society	0.095	1

* Note: CR ≤ 0.001.

Table 6. Category rankings for RRI implementation by technology.

Categories	Autonomous vehicle		Biotechnology		Overall
	Priority weight	Rank	Priority weight	Rank	Priority weight	Rank
Economic barrier	0.301	1	0.253	1	0.277	1
Implementation barrier	0.156	3	0.200	3	0.177	3
Policy/political barrier	0.246	2	0.251	2	0.249	2
Social barrier	0.145	5	0.138	5	0.142	5
Technical barrier	0.152	4	0.158	4	0.155	4

* Note: CRs of all cases are less than 0.003.

Table 7. Overall barrier rankings for RRI implementation by technology.

Overall barriers	Autonomous vehicle		Biotechnology		Overall
	Priority weight	Rank	Priority weight	Rank	Priority weight	Rank
Increased innovation costs due to RRI implementation	0.178	1	0.151	1	0.165	1
Lack of economic incentive to participate in RRI	0.123	2	0.102	3	0.112	2
Lack of clear RRI policies and unclear focus on RRI regulation	0.091	4	0.111	2	0.101	3
Lack of both trust and political leadership to lead RRI change	0.103	3	0.093	5	0.099	4
Difficulty in identifying the impacts of emerging technologies on society	0.091	5	0.099	4	0.095	5
Lack of clarity and empirical RRI cases	0.066	7	0.076	6	0.071	6
Conflicts of interest and a lack of stakeholder networks	0.069	6	0.059	8	0.064	7
Difficulty in understanding the emerging technologies	0.061	8	0.059	9	0.060	8
Lack of organizational structure and suitable RRI culture	0.049	10	0.068	7	0.058	9
Increased bureaucracy with RRI implementation	0.051	9	0.046	11	0.049	10
Lack of RRI training and expertise	0.041	11	0.056	10	0.048	11
Lack of social acceptance and academic identity of RRI	0.039	12	0.039	13	0.039	12
Lack of experience with bottom-up governance	0.037	13	0.040	12	0.039	13

* Note: CRs of all cases are less than 0.005.

Table A.1. Dimensions and relevant tools for RRI implementation.

Dimension	Definition	Representative techniques and approaches	Factors affecting implementation	Research
Anticipation	A priori analysis that predicts and analyzes the expected or unintended impacts of technological developments and innovations	Foresight	Engaging with existing imaginaries	Martin (2010)
		Technology assessment	Participation rather than prediction	Guston and Sarewitz (2002)
Reflexivity	Reviewing the fundamental objectives, motivations, potential impacts, and how benefits are distributed of technology development and innovation to meet regulatory and ethical standards	Embedded social scientists and ethicists in laboratories	Enlarging or redefining role responsibilities	Selin (2011)
		Ethical technology assessment	Reflexive capacity among scientists and within institutions	Swierstra, Stemerding, and Boenink (2009)
		Codes of conduct	Connections made between research practice and governance	Schomberg (2013)
Inclusion	A collective deliberation and discussion process through the inclusion of the public and various stakeholders to restructure possible problems and introduce a broad perspective.	Consensus conferences	Questionable legitimacy of deliberative exercises	Kulve and Rip (2011)
		Citizens’ juries and panels	Need for clarity about, purposes of and motivation for dialogue	Guston and Sarewitz (2002), Guston (2014)
Responsive ness	Inclusion of iterative and comprehensive learning processes and direction settings in an effort to internalize the process of prediction, reflection, and participatory deliberation into the innovation process.	Regulation	Science-policy culture	Roger et al. (2015), Watermeyer (2010)
		Standards	Institutional structure	Voegtlin and Scherer (2017)
		Niche management	Institutional cultures	Schot and Geels (2008)
		Stage-gates	Intellectual property regimes	Macnaghten and Owen (2011)

Table B.1. Emerging technologies studied in this research

Nation	Program/Project	Research	Emerging technology
EU	EC Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges	Owen (2014)	Health (biotechnology), Integrated transport (autonomous vehicle)
	Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR)	Smolka (2020)	Neuroscience (biotechnology)
		Flipse, van der Sanden, and Osseweijer (2013)	Biotechnology
		Flipse and Puylaert (2018)	Autonomous vehicle
	Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC)	Cock Buning and de Bruin (2017)	Autonomous vehicle
		Szollosy (2017)	Robotics (autonomous vehicle)
		Nulli et al. (2018)	IT (autonomous vehicle)
		Taylor and Woods (2020)	Synthetic biology (biotechnology)
	Dutch Responsible Innovation (MVI)	Hoop, Pols, and Romijn (2016)	Biofuels (biotechnology)
		Pols and Romijn (2017)	Biofuels (biotechnology)
	ELSI	Kurihara (2011)	Biotechnology
		Shineha et al. (2018)	Biotechnology
		Bardill (2014)	Biotechnology
		Meagher and Lee (2016)	Biotechnology
	CTA	Moens et al. (2010)	ICT (autonomous vehicle)
	ETC	Stahl, Eden, and Jirotka (2013)	ICT (autonomous vehicle)
Korea	Government Investment Industry	(MOTIE 2019)	Autonomous vehicle, Biohealth (biotechnology)
	Government technology assessment	(KISTEP 2014, 2015)	Autonomous vehicle, Genetic scissors (biotechnology)

Table

Criteria	importance ←								Equal (1)	→importance								Criteria
	Extreme importance (9)	(8)	Demonstrated importance (7)	(6)	Essentialor strong (5)	(4)	Moderate importance (3)	(2)		(2)	Moderate importance (3)	(4)	Essentialor strong (5)	(6)	Demonstrated importance (7)	(8)	Extreme importance (9)
Economic barrier																		Implementation barrier
Economic barrier																		Policy/political barrier
Economic barrier																		Social barrier
Economic barrier																		Technical barrier
Implementation barrier																		Policy/political barrier
Implementation barrier																		Social barrier
Implementation barrier																		Technical barrier
Policy/political barrier																		Social barrier
Policy/political barrier																		Technical barrier
Social barrier																		Technical barrier

Table

Criteria	(9)	(8)	(7)	(6)	(5)	(4)	(3)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	Criteria
Increased innovation costs due to RRI implementation																		Lack of economic incentives to participate in RRI

Table

Criteria	(9)	(8)	(7)	(6)	(5)	(4)	(3)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	Criteria
Lack of clarity and empirical RRI cases																		Lack of RRI training and expertise
Lack of clarity and empirical RRI cases																		Lack of organizational structure and suitable RRI culture
Lack of RRI training and expertise																		Lack of organizational structure and suitable RRI culture

Table

Criteria	(9)	(8)	(7)	(6)	(5)	(4)	(3)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	Criteria
Increased bureaucracy with RRI implementation																		Lack of clear RRI policies and unclear focus on RRI regulation
Increased bureaucracy with RRI implementation																		Lack of trust and political leadership to lead RRI change
Lack of clear RRI policies and unclear focus on RRI regulation																		Lack of trust and political leadership to lead RRI change

Table

Criteria	(9)	(8)	(7)	(6)	(5)	(4)	(3)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	Criteria
Lack of social acceptance and academic identity of RRI																		Lack of experience with bottom-up governance
Lack of social acceptance and academic identity of RRI																		Conflicts of interest and a lack of stakeholder networks
Lack of experience with bottom-up governance																		Conflicts of interest and a lack of stakeholder networks

Table

Criteria	(9)	(8)	(7)	(6)	(5)	(4)	(3)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	Criteria
Difficulty in understanding emerging technologies																		Difficulty in identifying the impacts of emerging technologies on society

Table

	Economic Barrier	Implementation Barrier	Policy & political Barrier	Social Barrier	Technical Barrier
Economic Barrier	-	1.614	1.127	1.778	1.876
Implementation Barrier	1/1.614	-	0.734	1.284	1.111
Policy & political Barrier	1/1.127	1/0.734	-	1.862	1.585
Social Barrier	1/1.778	1/1.284	1/1.862	-	0.906
Technical Barrier	1/1.876	1/1.111	1/1.585	1/0.906	-

Table

n	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0	0	0.52	0.89	1.11	1.25	1.35	1.40	1.45	1.49

Auer, Alexander , and Katharina Jarmai . 2018. “Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation Practices in SMEs: Insights into Drivers and Barriers from the Austrian Medical Device Sector.” Sustainability 10 (1): 17. doi:10.3390/su10010017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chatfield, Kate , Konstantinos Iatridis , Bernd C. Stahl , and Nearchos Paspallis . 2017. “Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation.” Sustainability 9 (6): 971. doi:10.3390/su9060971.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Genus, Audley , and Andy Stirling . 2018. “Collingridge and the Dilemma of Control: Towards Responsible and Accountable Innovation.” Research Policy 47 (1): 61–69. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoop, Evelien de , Auke Pols , and Henny Romijn . 2016. “Limits to Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 110–134. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1231396.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dreyer, Marc , Luc Chefneux , Anne Goldberg , Joachim von Heimburg , Norberto Patrignani , Monica Schofield , and Chris Shilling . 2017. “Responsible Innovation: A Complementary View from Industry with Proposals for Bridging Different Perspectives.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1719. doi:10.3390/su9101719.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gianni, Robert. 2014. “Framework for the Comparison of Theories of Responsible Innovation in Research.”.

 Google Scholar

Gurzawska, Agata , Markus Mäkinen , and Philip Brey . 2017. “Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1759. doi:10.3390/su9101759.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lukovics, Miklós , Steven M. Flipse , Beáta Udvari , and Erik Fisher . 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation in Contrasting Innovation Environments: Socio-Technical Integration Research in Hungary and the Netherlands.” Technology in Society 51: 172–182. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burget, Mirjam , Emanuele Bardone , and Margus Pedaste . 2017. “Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.” Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carbajo, Ruth , and Luisa F. Cabeza . 2018. “Renewable Energy Research and Technologies through Responsible Research and Innovation Looking Glass: Reflexions, Theoretical Approaches and Contemporary Discourses.” Applied Energy 211: 792–808. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.088.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davis, Michael , and Kelly Laas . 2014. “‘Broader Impacts’ or ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering.” Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (4): 963–983. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9480-1.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monsonís-Payá, Irene , Mónica García-Melón , and José Félix Lozano . 2017. “Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting.” Sustainability 9 (12): 2168. doi:10.3390/su9122168.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paredes-Frigolett, Harold. 2016. “Modeling the Effect of Responsible Research and Innovation in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 110: 126–133. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stilgoe, Jack , Richard Owen , and Phil Macnaghten . 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heras, Maria , and Isabel Ruiz-Mallén . 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation Indicators for Science Education Assessment: How to Measure the Impact?” International Journal of Science Education 39 (18): 2482–2507. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geenhuizen, Marina van , and Qing Ye . 2014. “Responsible Innovators: Open Networks on the Way to Sustainability Transitions.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 87: 28–40. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Forsberg, Ellen-Marie , Clare Shelley-Egan , Miltos Ladikas , and Richard Owen . 2018. “Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation in Research Funding and Research Conducting Organisations—What Have We Learned so Far?” In Governance and Sustainability of Responsible Research and Innovation Processes . edited by Fernando Ferri , Ned Dwyer , Saša Raicevich , Patrizia Grifoni , Husne Altiok , Hans Thor Andersen , Yiannis Laouris , and Cecilia Silvestri , 3–11. Cham: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Genus, Audley , and Marfuga Iskandarova . 2018. “Responsible Innovation: Its Institutionalisation and a Critique.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 128: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.029.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Landeweerd, Laurens , David Townend , Jessica Mesman , and Ine Van Hoyweghen . 2015. ““Reflections on Different Governance Styles in Regulating Science: A Contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation.’” Life Sciences.” Society and Policy 11 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y.

 Google Scholar

Wahlster, Philip , Shane Scahill , Christine Y. Lu , and Zaheer Ud Din Babar . 2015. “Barriers to Access and Use of High Cost Medicines: A Review.” Health Policy and Technology 4 (3): 191–214. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.04.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, Ben R. 2010. “The Origins of the Concept of ‘Foresight’ in Science and Technology: An Insider’s Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77 (9): 1438–1447. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guston, David H. , and Daniel Sarewitz . 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24: 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.

 Google Scholar

Selin, Cynthia. 2011. “Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 723–737. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swierstra, T. , D. Stemerding , and M. Boenink . 2009. “Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case of the Obesitypill.” In Evaluating New Technologies , edited by Paul Sollie , and Marcus Düwell , 119–138. Dordrecht: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Schomberg, Rene von. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society , edited by Richard Owen , John Bessant , and Maggy Heintz , 51–74. Sussex: Wiley Online Library.

 Google Scholar

Kulve, Haico te , and Arie Rip . 2011. “Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-Engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 699–714. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guston, David H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance.’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roger, Strand , Jack Spaapen , Martin Bauer , Ela Hogan , Gema Revuelta , and Sigrid Stagl . 2015. Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation.

 Google Scholar

Watermeyer, Richard. 2010. “Social Network Science: Pedagogy, Dialogue, Deliberation.” Journal of Science Communication 9 (1): 1–9. doi:10.22323/2.09010204.

 Google Scholar

Voegtlin, C. , and A. G. Scherer . 2017. “Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World.” Journal of Business Ethics 143 (1): 227–243.

 Google Scholar

Schot, J. , and F. W. Geels . 2008. “Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 537–554.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Macnaghten, Phil , and Richard Owen . 2011. “Good Governance for Geoengineering.” Nature 479 (7373): 293–293. doi:10.1038/479293a.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Owen, Richard 2014. “Responsible Research and Innovation: Options for Research and Innovation Policy in the EU.”.

 Google Scholar

Smolka, Mareike. 2020. “Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: from Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I.” NanoEthics , doi:10.1007/s11569-019-00362-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flipse, Steven M. , Maarten C.A. van der Sanden , and Patricia Osseweijer . 2013. “Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What Is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 1141–1164. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flipse, Steven M. , and Steven Puylaert . 2018. “Organizing a Collaborative Development of Technological Design Requirements Using a Constructive Dialogue on Value Profiles: A Case in Automated Vehicle Development.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1): 49–72. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9877-3.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cock Buning, Madeleine de , and Roeland de Bruin . 2017. “Autonomous Intelligent Cars: Proof That the EPSRC Principles Are Future-Proof.” Connection Science 29 (3): 189–199. doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1310181.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Szollosy, Michael. 2017. “EPSRC Principles of Robotics: Defending an Obsolete Human(Ism)?” Connection Science 29 (2): 150–159. doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1279126.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nulli, Margherita , Bernd C. Stahl , Carolyn T. Holter , and Martin de Heaver . 2018. “Responsible Research in IT.” ITNOW 60 (2): 14–15.

 Google Scholar

Taylor, Ken , and Simon Woods . 2020. “Reflections on the Practice of Responsible (Research and) Innovation in Synthetic Biology.” New Genetics and Society 39 (2): 127–147. doi:10.1080/14636778.2019.1709431.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pols, Auke , and Henny Romijn . 2017. “Evaluating Irreversible Social Harms.” Policy Sciences 50 (3): 495–518. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9277-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kurihara, Chieko. 2011. “Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of Microdose Clinical Trials.” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 63 (7): 503–510. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2011.01.002.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shineha, Ryuma , Yusuke Inoue , Tsunakuni Ikka , Atsuo Kishimoto , and Yoshimi Yashiro . 2018. “A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes on Communication Toward Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine Between the Public and the Scientific Community.” Stem Cells Translational Medicine 7 (2): 251–257. doi:10.1002/sctm.17-0184.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bardill, Jessica. 2014. “Native American DNA: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of an Evolving Concept.” Annual Review of Anthropology 43 (1): 155–166. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155504.

 Google Scholar

Meagher, Karen M. , and Lisa M. Lee . 2016. “Integrating Public Health and Deliberative Public Bioethics: Lessons from the Human Genome Project Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program.” Public Health Reports 131 (1): 44–51. doi:10.1177/003335491613100110.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moens, Nicolaas P. , Jacqueline E. W. Broerse , Lisette Gast , and Joske F. G. Bunders . 2010. “A Constructive Technology Assessment Approach to ICT Planning in Developing Countries: Evaluating the First Phase, the Roundtable Workshop.” Information Technology for Development 16 (1): 34–61. doi:10.1002/itdj.20130.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stahl, Berndt C , Grace Eden , and Marina Jirotka . 2013. “Responsible Research and Innovation in Information and Communication Technology: Identifying and Engaging with the Ethical Implications of ICTs.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society , edited by R. Owen , J. Bessant , and M. Heintz , 199–218. London: John Wiley.

 Google Scholar

MOTIE . 2019. “2020 National Research and Development Project (R&D) Budget”.

 Google Scholar

KISTEP . 2014. “Technology Impact Assessment Unmanned Mobile Vehicle.”.

 Google Scholar

KISTEP . 2015. “Technology Impact Assessment Genetic Scissors.”.

 Google Scholar