RRI as the inheritor of deliberative democracy and the precautionary principle

References

• Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2011. “Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 17–27. doi: 10.1177/0270467610391237
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, V., and K. Hansen. 2007. “How Deliberation Makes Better Citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the Euro.” European Journal of Political Research 46: 531–556. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00699.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aristotle. 1926. Art of Rhetoric. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., S. Niemeyer, M. Neblo, M. R. Steenbergen, and J. Steiner. 2010. “Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 32–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. H. Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology, 3rd ed., edited by E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. Cambridge: MIT Press, 979–1000.
   Google Scholar
• Berthelot, J.-M. 2007. L’emprise du vrai. Connaissance scientifique et modernité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, W., and W. Rehg. 1997. Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthes. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique [ Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy]. Translated by G. Burchell. Paris: Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. 2003. “Deliberative Democracy Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by W. Bohman and W. Rehg, 67–91. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, M. 2000. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48: 947–969. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, F. 2002. Theories of Democracy. A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, M., and M. Ladikas. 2004. Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy; Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Deville, M. 2015. “ Débat politique: quelle(s) rationalité (s)? Différenciation méthodologique entre le contenu et le relationnel. Débat sur l’extension des droits politiques des étrangers dans le cadre de l’Assemblée Constitutante de Genève et de délibérations citoyennes expérimentales.” PhD, Université de Genève.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., R. E. Goodin, A. Tucker, and B. Reber. 2009. “Promethean Elites Encounter Precautionary Publics: The Case of GM Food.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 34: 263–288. doi: 10.1177/0162243907310297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster, J. 1998. “Introduction.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by J. Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Call for Tender, No. RTD-B6-PP-00964-2013. 2013. “ Study on Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation.” Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Science Foundation. 2011. European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ferry, J.-M. 1991. Les puissances de l’expérience. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf.
   Google Scholar
• Ferry, J.-M. 2004. Les grammaires de l’intelligence. Paris: Cerf.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garden, H., OECD Report. 2017. Neurotechnology and Society. Strengthening Responsible Innovation and Research in Brain Science.
   Google Scholar
• Gardiner, S. 2006. “A Core Precautionary Principle.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1): 33–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00237.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, M., A. Bächtiger, S. Shikano, S. Reber, and S. Rohr. 2016. “Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis).” British Journal of Political Science 37: 1–26. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000144
   Google Scholar
• Gianni, R. 2016. Responsibility and Freedom: The Ethical Realm of RRI. London: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Girard, C. 2010. L’idéal délibératif à l’épreuve des démocraties représentatives de masse. Autonomie, bien commun et légitimité dans les théories contemporaines de la démocratie. Université de Paris 1.
   Google Scholar
• Grinbaum, A., and C. Groves. 2013. “What Is ‘Responsible’ about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 119–142. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Grönlund, K., M. Setälä, and K. Herne. 2010. “Deliberation and Civic Virtue: Lessons from a Citizen Deliberation Experiment.” European Political Science Review 2: 95–117.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, C. 2006. “Technological Futures and Non-reciprocal Responsibility.” The International Journal of Humanities 4 (2): 57–61.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2016. The Hermeneutical Side of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Concepts, Cases, and Orientations. London: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. 2010. “The Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies.” Special Issue Nanomaterials Ethics. Journal of the Korean Vacuum Society 19 (6): 432–441. doi: 10.5757/JKVS.2010.19.6.432
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1970. “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’.” In Toward a Rational Society, (1968) translated by J. Shapiro, 81–122. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartz-Karp, J. 2007. “How and Why Deliberative Democracy Enables Co-intelligence and Brings Wisdom to Governance.” Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1): 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hennen, L. 1999. “ Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity?” Edited by S. Joss, Special issue on public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 26 (5).
   Google Scholar
• Hunyadi, M. 2004. Les usages de la precaution. Foreword J.-P. Dupuy. Paris: Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas, H. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age (1979). Translated by Hans Jonas and David Herr. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsen, A. R., and S. Toulmin. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S., and A. Brownlea. 1999. “Considering the Concept of Procedural Justice for Public Policy – and Decision-Making in Science and Technology Dossier.” Special Issue on Public Participation in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 321–330. doi: 10.3152/147154399781782347
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, L. 2000. “ Project Management. A Matter of Ethics and Robust Decision.” In EUROPTA, Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making, 87–111. http://www.tekno.dk/pdf/projekter/europta_Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kourilsky, P., and G. Viney. 2000. Le principe de precaution. Paris: La Documentation Française.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, R. G., and J. Petts. 2013. “Adaptative Governance for Responsible Innovation.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 143–164. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Le Goff, A. 2009. Démocratie délibérative et démocratie de contestation. Repenser l’engagement civique entre républicanisme et théorie critique. Université de Paris Ouest-Nanterre.
   Google Scholar
• Lindell, M. 2011. “ Same but Different – Similarities and Differences in the Implementation of Deliberative Mini-publics.” ECPR General Conference, Section “Democratic Innovations in Europe – a Comparative Perspective”, August 24–27.
   Google Scholar
• Luskin, R. C., J. S. Fishkin, and R. Jowell. 2002. “Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 455–487. doi: 10.1017/S0007123402000194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luskin, R. C., I. O’Flynn, J. S. Fishkin, and D. Russel. 2014. “Deliberating Across Deep Divides.” Political Studies 62: 116–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01005.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, G. 2006. “Does Democratic Deliberation Change Minds?” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5: 279–303. doi: 10.1177/1470594X06068301
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., J. Bohman, S. Chambers, D. Estlund, A. Föllesdal, A. Fung, C. Lafont, B. Manin, and J. L. Martí. 2010. “The Place of Self-interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 64–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., J. Hartz-Karp, M. Amengual, and J. Gastil. 2006. “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study.” Journal of Public Deliberation 2: 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Mitcham, C. 2003. “Co-responsibility for Research Integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2): 273–290. doi: 10.1007/s11948-003-0014-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences (CCNE). 2014. Avis N° 122, Recours aux techniques biomédicales en vue de “neuro-amélioration” chez la personne non malade: enjeux éthique, 12 février. http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/sites/default/files/publications/ccne.avis_ndeg122.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Neblo, M. A. 2007. “ Change for the Better? Linking the Mechanisms of Deliberative Opinion Change to Normative Theory.” Accessed December 12, 2016. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=XJxA_KIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=XJxA_KIAAAAJ:zYLM7Y9cAGgC.
   Google Scholar
• Obama, B. 2006. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Bessant, and M. Heintz. 2013. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–50. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., and J. Mansbridge. 2012. Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pellé, S., and B. Reber. 2015. “Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility.” Special issue on responsible innovation in the private sector. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2): 107–117. doi: 10.3920/JCNS2014.x017
   Google Scholar
• Pellé, S., and B. Reber. 2016. From Ethical Review to Responsible Research and Innovation, 314–319. London: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2005a. “Technologies et débat démocratique en Europe. De la participation à l’évaluation pluraliste.” Revue Française de Science Politique 55 (5–6): 811–833. doi: 10.3917/rfsp.555.0811
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2005b. “Public Evaluation and New Rules for the ‘Human Park’.” In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel, 314–319. Cambridge: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2006a. “Pluralisme moral: les valeurs, les croyances et les théories morales.” Archives de philosophie du droit 49: 21–46.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2006b. “Technology Assessment as Policy Analysis: From Expert Advice to Participatory Approaches.” In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics and Methods. Public Administration and Public Policy Series, edited by F. Fischer, G. Miller, and M. Sidney, Vol. 125, 493–512. New York: Rutgers University.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2010. “La Valutazione partecipata della technologia. Una promessa troppo difficile da mantenere?” In Innovazioni in corso. Il dibattito sulle nanotecnologie fra diritto, etica e società, edited by S. Arnaldi and A. Lorenzet, 325–349. Roma: Il Mulino.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2011a. La démocratie génétiquement modifiée. Sociologies éthiques de l’évaluation des technologies controversies. Collection Bioéthique critique. Québec: Presses de l’Université de Laval.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2011b. “ Argumenter et délibérer entre éthique et politique.” In Reber B. (dir.), Vertus et limites de la démocratie deliberative. Archives de Philosophie 4, avril-juin: 289–303.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2013. “ Governance Between Precaution and Pluralism.” Special Issue, Interpreting Environmental Responsibility, International Social Science Journal 211/212 March–June: 75-87. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2016a. Precautionary Principle, Pluralism, Deliberation. Science and Ethics. London: ISTE. In French. La délibération des meilleurs des mondes. Entre précaution et pluralisme. London: ISTE, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. 2016b. “ Sens des responsabilités dans la gouvernance climatique.” In Reber B. (dir.), Ethique et gouvernance du climat. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, Vol. 1, 103–117. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedermann. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., and C. Wales. 2000. “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48: 51–63. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl, B. C., G. Eden, and M. Jirotka. 2013. “Responsible Research and Innovation in Information and Communication Technology: Identifying and Engaging with the Ethical Implications.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 199–218. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, J. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, J., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, and M. R. Steenbergen. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action. Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, P. C., and H. Fineberg, ed. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42: 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 2005. “Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” In Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement (Claiming Citizenship), edited by M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 218–231. London: Zed.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science Technology and Human Values 33: 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A., O. Renn, and A. Klinke. 1999. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. Sevilla: European Commission – JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. 2005. Laws of Fear. Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sykes, K., and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Responsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 85–107. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2013. “Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn. 1995. “Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (5): 443–464. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1991. “Knowledges in Context.” Science, Technology & Human Values 15 (1): 111–121. doi: 10.1177/016224399101600108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1992. “Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons or Hall of Mirrors?” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 37–43. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/008
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1993. “Public Uptake of Science: A Case for Institutional Reflexivity.” Public Understanding of Science 2 (4): 321–337. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
   Google Scholar