Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

References

• Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Vol. 17. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, Ulrich, and Edgar Grande. 2010. “Varieties of Second Modernity: The Cosmopolitan Turn in Social and Political Theory and Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 61 (3): 409–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01320.x
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Leonard. 1992. Anthem. The Future. Leonard Cohen Stranger Music, Inc (BMI).
   Google Scholar
• Decker, M., and M. Ladikas. 2004. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment between Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre. 2011. Science, technologie et innovation sur le chemin de la réflexivité. Enjeux et dynamiques du Technology Assessment parlementaire. Louvain La Neuve: Academia Bruylant.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, Nathan Charlier, Benedikt Rosskamp, and Michiel van Oudheusden. 2015. “De-and Re-Institutionalizing Technology Assessment in Contemporary Knowledge-Based Economies.” Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 24 (1): 20–29.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre, Catherine Fallon, and Sébastien Brunet. 2011. “Parliamentary Technology Assessment Institutions as Indications of Reflexive Modernization.” Technology in Society 33 (1): 36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Dodier, Nicolas. 1993. “Les appuis conventionnels de l’action: Eléments de pragmatique sociologique.” Réseaux 11 (62): 63–85.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, Anthony. 2002. “Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment.” Sociology 36 (2): 293–315. doi: 10.1177/0038038502036002004
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496. doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ganzevles, Jurgen, Rinie van Est, and Michael Nentwich. 2014. “Embracing Variety: Introducing the Inclusive Modelling of (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 292–313. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968439
   Google Scholar
• Goulet, Frédéric. 2016. “Faire science à part. Politiques d’inclusion sociale et recherche agronomique en Argentine.” Diss., Université Paris-Est.
   Google Scholar
• Grin, John, Henk Van de Graaf, and Robertus Hoppe. 1997. Technology Assessment through Interaction: A Guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, Matthias, and Wolfgang Krohn. 2005. “Society as Experiment: Sociological Foundations for a Self-Experimental Society.” History of the Human Sciences 18 (2): 63–86. doi: 10.1177/0952695105054182
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 1999. “Technology Assessment or Ethics of Technology? Reflections on Technology Development between Social Sciences and Philosophy.” Ethical Perspectives-Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 6 (2): 170–182. doi: 10.2143/EP.6.2.505355
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2014. “Responsible Research and Innovation: An Emerging Issue in Research Policy Rooted in the Debate on Nanotechnology.” In Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development, edited by Simone Arnaldi, Arianna Ferrari, Paolo Magaudda, and Francesca Marin, 191–205. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
   Google Scholar
• Gutwirth, Serge, and Jenneke Christiaens. 2015. “Les sciences et leurs problèmes: la fraude scientifique, un moyen de diversion?” Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques 73 (1): 21–49. doi: 10.3917/riej.074.0021
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard. 1999. “Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity?” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 303–312. doi: 10.3152/147154399781782310
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, Leonhard, and Linda Nierling. 2017. “The Politics of Technology Assessment.” Call for Papers, 3rd European Technology Assessment Conference, Cork, May 17–19, 2017. http://cork2017.technology-assessment.info/images/files/Call-for-Papers---The-politics-of-TA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Horst, Maja. 2014. “On the Weakness of Strong Ties.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 43–47. doi: 10.1177/0963662512473392
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, Simon. 2000. “Participation in Parliamentary Technology Assessment: From Theory to Practice.” In Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by Norman J. Vig and Herbert Paschen, 325–362. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci, eds. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives. London: Center for the Study of Democracy.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Lars, Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen, and Marie Louise Jørgensen, eds. 2016. Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lucivero, Federica, Michiel van Ouheusden, and Pierre Delvenne. Forthcoming. “Making the Invisible Visible. Nomativities in Technology Assessment.”
   Google Scholar
• Méheust, Bertrand. 2009. “La politique de l’oxymore.” Comment ceux qui nous gouvernent nous masquent la réalité du monde.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Clark A. 2008. “Civic Epistemologies: Constituting Knowledge and Order in Political Communities.” Sociology Compass 2 (6): 1896–1919. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00175.x
   Google Scholar
• Mythen, Gabe. 2007. “Reappraising the Risk Society Thesis: Telescopic Sight or Myopic Vision?” Current Sociology 55 (6): 793–813. doi: 10.1177/0011392107081986
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Google Scholar
• PACITA Manifesto. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/ta-manifesto/ (accessed 20 February 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2006. “A Co-Evolutionary Approach to Reflexive Governance – and Its Ironies.” In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, edited by J. P. Voss, D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, 82–100. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2016. “The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and around Brussels.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 290–304. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, and Johan Schot, eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society. New York: Pinter Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie, and Harro van Lente. 2013. “Bridging the Gap between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed.” NanoEthics 7 (1): 7–16. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9
   Google Scholar
• Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. 2005. “Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Maximizing Human Benefit.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (1): 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11051-004-2336-5
   Google Scholar
• Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. “Creative Destruction.” Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 825: 82–85.
   Google Scholar
• Thoreau, François. 2013. “Embarquement immédiat pour les nanotechnologies responsables. Comment poser et re-poser la question de la réflexivité?” PhD thesis, Université de Liège.
   Google Scholar
• Tyfield, David. 2012. “A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis.” Minerva 50 (2): 149–167. doi: 10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y
   Google Scholar
• Van Eijndhoven, Josee CM. 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
   Google Scholar
• Van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Van Oudheusden, Michiel. 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
   Google Scholar
• Van Oudheusden, Michiel, Nathan Charlier, Benedikt Rosskamp, and Pierre Delvenne. 2015. “Broadening, Deepening, and Governing Innovation: Flemish Technology Assessment in Historical and Socio-Political Perspective.” Research Policy 44 (10): 1877–1886. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.010
   Google Scholar
• Vig, Norman J., and Herbert Paschen. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2007. From the Ethics of Technology towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2011a. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Brussels: European Commission. https://philpapers.org/archive/VONTRR.pdf (accessed 20 February 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2011b. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abscha ¨tzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplina ¨rer Methoden, edited by M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, James, Jack Stilgoe, and Brian Wynne. 2005. The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, Langdon. 1980. “Do Artifacts have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.
   Google Scholar