Responsible Research and Innovation in the Context of University Technology Transfer

• Authors: Jerzy Piotr Gwizdała , Karol Śledzik

Title variants

Odpowiedzialność badań i innowacji z punktu widzenia uniwersyteckiego transferu technologii

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The term „Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)” has been increasingly used for over a decade. The RRI concept is not currently well defined. The theory of RRI is not developed enough and there are still conceptual divergences. This paper introduces the issue of Responsible Research and Innovation and addresses the following key questions: How do we define RRI? Where do we stand in terms of understanding the RRI dimensions presented in literature? What is the role of RRI in the university technology transfer activity? The study is based on literature search on the Scopus (www.scopus.com), EBSCO (www.ebsco.com), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) and Google Books (books.google.com) databases to obtain articles published in peer reviewed journals, related to the concept of RRI and technology transfer. The search terms (for title and topic) were: responsible innovation, responsible research and innovation, RRI, technology transfer. Critical analysis of the state of knowledge allowed to propose a set of seven conceptual dimensions (inclusion, anticipation, responsiveness, reflexivity, sustainability, care and economic) of the Responsible Research and Innovation concept that may be implemented in technology transfer processes executed at universities. RRI concept is still under development. A discussion around the conceptual dimensions of RRI will be followed by the strategic challenges of universities. The study resulted in two conclusions. Firstly, the RRI concept may shift the focus of TTOs (Technology Transfer Offices) from outcomes (revenues, cash flow, rate of return, patents, license fee, etc.) to processes, which further leads to the second conclusion, that all seven presented conceptual dimensions should indicate particular types of processes in university TTO. Fulfillment of these two conclusions makes possible to implement RRI on University in a wider perspective, than just fulfill the requirements of administrative funders.

PL

Pojęcie „odpowiedzialne badania i innowacje” (RRI – Responsible Research and Innovation) jest coraz częściej wykorzystywane już od ponad dekady. Koncepcja ta nie jest obecnie dobrze opisana. Teoria RRI nie jest wystarczająco rozwinięta i nadal istnieją znaczące różnice koncepcyjne. Celem niniejszego opracowania jest odpowiedź na następujące pytania: „Jak może być zdefiniowane RRI?”, „Na jakim etapie jest proces wyłaniania wymiarów koncepcyjnych RRI?”, „Jaka może być rola RRI w procesie uniwersyteckiego transferu technologii?”. Metodyka zastosowana w badaniu to krytyczna analiza stanu wiedzy. Badanie polegało na zgromadzeniu publikacji z takich baz danych, jak: Scopus (www.scopus.com), EBSCO (www.ebsco.com), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) i Google Books (books.google.com). Analizie poddano publikacje tylko z recenzowanych czasopism. Sformułowania użyte w trackie przeszukiwania baz danych to: odpowiedzialne innowacje, odpowiedzialne badania i innowacje, RRI oraz transfer technologii. Analiza krytyczna stanu wiedzy doprowadziła do wniosków skutkujących propozycją siedmiu wymiarów pojęciowych RRI (inkluzja, antycypacja, reakcja, refleksja, troska i wymiar ekonomiczny). Zaprezentowane wymiary RRI mogą być realizowane w procesach transferu technologii procedowanych na uniwersytecie. Koncepcja RRI jest wciąż w fazie rozwoju. Dyskusja wokół koncepcyjnych wymiarów RRI będzie prawdopodobnie zmierzać w tym samym kierunku co wyzwania strategiczne uczelni. W wyniku przeprowadzonego badania wyłoniły się dwa kluczowe wnioski. Po pierwsze, wykorzystanie koncepcji RRI może doprowadzić do przesunięcia punktu ciężkości celów działalności Centrów Transferu Technologii (CTT) od wartości finansowo‑księgowych (przychody, przepływy pieniężne, stopy zwrotu, patenty, opłaty licencyjne etc.) do procesów, które są związane z drugim kluczowym wnioskiem, iż siedem zaprezentowanych wymiarów koncepcyjnych RRI powinny być realizowane w ramach procedur CTT. Uwzględnienie tych dwóch wniosków umożliwia wdrożenie RRI na uniwersytecie w szerszej perspektywie niż tylko spełnienie administracyjnych wymogów instytucji finansujących badania naukowe.

Keywords

EN

Responsible Research and Innovation; RRI; Responsible innovation; Research policy; Technology transfer

PL

odpowiedzialność badań i innowacji; odpowiedzialne innowacje; polityka badań naukowych; transfer technologii; odpowiedzialność badań i innowacji; odpowiedzialne innowacje; polityka badań naukowych; transfer technologii

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 328

Dates

published

2017-09-07

Contributors

author

Jerzy Piotr Gwizdała

• University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Management, Finance and Financial Risk Department

author

Karol Śledzik

• University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Management, Finance and Financial Risk Department

References

• Armstrong M., Cornut G., Delacôte S., Lenglet M. (2012), Towards a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance: New product committees revisited, “Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance”, no. 20, pp. 147–168.
• Asante K., Owen R., Williamson G. (2014), Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study, “Journal of Responsible Innovation”, no. 1(1), pp. 9–30. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882552.
• Barben D., Fisher E., Celin C., Guston D.H. (2008), Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration, [in:] E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 979–1000, http://cspo.org/legacy/library/090501F5DQ_lib_STSHandbookBarbe.pdf [accessed: 13.05.2016].
• Beckwith J., Huang F. (2005), Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science, “Nature Biotechnology”, no. 23(12), pp. 1479–1480.
• Bensaude‑Vincent B. (2014), The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of “public engagement in science”, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 23(3), pp. 238–253.
• Blumberg P.D. (1996), From “Publish or Perish” to “Profit or Perish”: Revenues from University Technology Transfer and the § 501(C)(3) Tax Exemption, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review”, no. 89, p. 105.
• Borup M., Brown N., Konrad K., van Lente H. (2006), The sociology of expectations in science and technology, “Technology Analysis and Strategic Management”, no. 18, pp. 285–298, doi:10.1080/09537320600777002.
• Boucher P. (2015), ‘You wouldn’t have your granny using them’: Drawing boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable applications of civil drones, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9720-7.
• Bozeman B., Rimes H., Youtie J. (2015), The evolving state‑of‑the‑art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model, “Research Policy”, no. 44, pp. 34–49. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008.
• Bremer S., Millar K., Wright N., Kaiser M. (2015), Responsible techno‑innovation in aquaculture: Employing ethical engagement to explore attitudes to GM salmon in Northern Europe, “Aquaculture”, no. 437, pp. 370–381, doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.12.031.
• Burg S. van der (2009), Imagining the future of photo acoustic mammography, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 15(1), pp. 97–110, doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9079-0.
• Burget M., Bardone E., Pedaste M. (2016), Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A literature Review, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
• Carson R. (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton‑Mifflin, New York.
• Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2009), On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd ed., National Academies Press, Washington.
• De Martino M., Errichiello L., Marasco A., Morvillo A. (2013), Logistics innovation in Seaports: An inter‑organizational perspective, “Research in Transportation Business and Management”, no. 8, pp. 123–133, doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.05.001.
• Douglas H. (2009), Science, Policy, and the Value‑Neutral Ideal, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
• Edsall J.T. (1975), Scientific freedom and responsibility, “Science”, no. 188(4189), pp. 687–693.
• Einstein A. (1939), Letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Einstein.shtml [accessed: 13.05.2016].
• Elliott K.C. (2011), Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research, Oxford University Press, New York.
• European Commission (2013), Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in European Responsible Research and Innovation, Brussels, doi:10.2777/46253.
• Fisher E., Mahajan R.L. (2006), Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory, Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE), Chicago, pp. 1–7, doi:10.1115/IMECE2006-14790.
• Fisher E., Rip A. (2007), Responsible innovation: multi‑level dynamics and soft intervention practices, [in:] Owen R., Heintz M., Bessant J. (eds.), Responsible Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
• Flipse S., Sanden M., Osseweijer P. (2013), The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 19(3), pp. 703–725, doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9423-2.
• Forge J. (2008), The Responsible Scientist: A Philosophical Inquiry, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
• Forsberg E., Quaglio G., O’Kane H., Karapiperis T., van Woensel L., Arnaldi S. (2015), Issues and opinions: Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility, “Technology in Society”, no. 42, pp. 21–27, doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.12.004.
• Frankel M.S. (2012), Regulating the boundaries of dual‑use research, “Science”, no. 336(6088), pp. 1523–1525.
• Garud R., Gehman J. (2012), Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: evolutionary, relations and durational, “Research Policy”, no. 41(6), pp. 980–995.
• Geels F.W. (2010), Ontologies, socio‑technical transitions (to sustainability) and the multi‑level perspective, “Research Policy”, no. 39(4), pp. 495–510.
• Glerup C., Horst M. (2014), Mapping “social responsibility” in science, “Journal of Responsible Innovation”, no. 1(1), pp. 31–50.
• Groves C. (2009), Future ethics: Risk, care and non‑reciprocal responsibility, “Journal of Global Ethics”, no. 5(1), pp. 17–31, doi:10.1080/17449620902765286.
• Gulbrandsen M., Smeby J.‑C. (2005), Industry Funding and University Professors’ Research Performance, “Research Policy”, vol. 34, pp. 932–936.
• Guston D.H. (2004), Responsible innovation in the commercialised university, [in:] D.G. Stein (ed.), Buying in or Selling Out: The Commercialisation of the American Research University, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
• Hayter C.S. (2015a), Social Responsibility and the Knowledge Production Function of Higher Education, [in:] C. Antonelli, A.N. Link (eds.), Routledge Handbook of The Economics of Knowledge, Routledge, New York.
• Hayter C.S. (2015b), A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem, “Small Business Economics”, pp. 1–24, doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3.
• Hayter C.S. (2016), A social responsibility view of the “patent‑centric linear model” of University Technology Transfer, “Duquesne Law Review”, vol. 54, pp. 7–52.
• Hellstrom T. (2003), Systemic innovation and risk: technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation, “Technology in Society”, no. 25, pp. 369–384.
• Hove S. van den, McGlade J., Mottet P., Depledge M.H. (2012), The innovation union: A perfect means to confused ends?, “Environmental Science and Policy”, no. 16, pp. 73–80, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.006.
• Iatridis K., Schroeder D. (2016), Responsible Research and Innovation in Industry, The Case for Corporate Responsibility Tools, Springer, Cham–Heidelberg–New York–Dordrecht–London.
• Jonas H. (1984), The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Kearnes M. (2013), Performing synthetic worlds: Situating the bioeconomy, “Science and Public Policy”, no. 40(4), pp. 453–465, doi:10.1093/scipol/sct052.
• Kitcher P. (2001), Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Koops B.‑J., Oosterlaken I., Romijn H., Swierstra T., van den Hoven J. (2015), Responsible innovation. Concepts, Approaches, and Applications, Springer, Cham–Heidelberg–New York–Dordrecht–London.
• Lee P. (2013), Patents and the University, “Duke Law Journal”, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 25–26.
• Lee R.G. (2012), Look at Mother Nature on the run in the 21st Century: Responsibility, research and innovation, “Transnational Environmental Law”, no. 1, pp. 105–117.
• Levidow L., Neubauer C. (2014), EU research agendas: Embedding what future?, “Science as Culture”, no. 23(3), pp. 397–412, doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.926149.
• Longino H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Maynard A.D. (2015), The (nano) entrepreneur’s dilemma, “Nature Nanotechnology”, no. 10(3), pp. 199–200, doi:10.1038/nnano.2015.35.
• Mejlgaard N., Bloch C., Degn L., Nielsen M.W., Ravn T. (2012), Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences, “Science and Public Policy”, no. 39, pp. 741–750.
• Merton R.K. (1973), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. (2002), Evolutionary theorizing in economics, “Journal of Economic Perspectives”, no. 16(2), pp. 23–46.
• O’Gorman C., Byrne O., Pandya D. (2008), How Scientists Commercialise New Knowledge Via Entrepreneurship, “Journal of Technology Transfer”, vol. 33, p. 23.
• Owen R., Baxter D., Maynard T., Depledge M.H. (2009), Beyond regulation: Risk pricing and responsible innovation, “Environmental Science and Technology”, no. 43, pp. 5171–5175.
• Owen R., Bessant J., Heinz M. (2013), Responsible Innovation, Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York.
• Owen R., Goldberg N. (2010), Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, “Risk Analysis”, no. 30, pp. 1699–1707.
• Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. (2012), Responsible research and innovation: From science in socjety to science for society, with society, “Science and Public Policy”, no. 39(6), pp. 751–760.
• Pandza K., Ellwood P. (2013), Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation, “Research Policy”, no. 42(2013), pp. 1112–1125.
• Pellizzoni L. (2004), Responsibility and environmental governance, “Environmental Politics”, no. 13(3), pp. 541–565.
• Phan P.H., Siegel D.S. (2006), The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned, Managerial and Policy Implications, and the Road Forward, “Found Trends Entrepreneurship”, no. 77, pp. 77–144.
• Pidgeon N., Parkhill K., Corner A., Vaughan N. (2013), Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project, “Nature Climate Change”, no. 3(5), pp. 451–457.
• Pielke R. (2007), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Popper K. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
• Regulation EU No. 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11.12.2013 establishing Horizon 2020‑the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014e2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC. Off J Eur Union.
• Reiser J.M., Bulger R.E. (1997), The social responsibilities of biological scientists, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 3(2), pp. 137–143.
• Resnik D.B. (1998), The ethics of science: An introduction, Routledge, London.
• Resnik D.B., Elliot K.C. (2016), The ethical challenges of socially responsible science, “Accountability in Research”, no. 23(1), pp. 31–46, doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608.
• Ribeiro E.B., Smith R.D.J., Millar K. (2016), A mobilizing Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, pp. 1159–1180, doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6.
• Robinson D.K. (2009), Co‑evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, no. 76, pp. 1222–1239, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015.
• Roco M.C., Harthorn B., Guston D., Shapira P. (2011), Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development, “Journal of Nanoparticle Research”, no. 13(9), pp. 3557–3590, doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0454-4.
• Rogers E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York.
• Rose N. (2014), NeuroView: The human brain project: social and ethical challenges, “Neuron”, no. 82, pp. 1212–1215, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.06.001.
• Rothaermel F.T., Agung S.D., Jiang L. (2007), University Entrepreneurship: A Taxonomy of the Literature, “Industrial and Corporate Change”, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 691–791, doi:10.1093/icc/dtm023.
• Saille S. de (2015), Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘responsible research and innovation’, “Journal of Responsible Innovation”, no. 2(2), pp. 152–168, doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.
• Schaper‑Rinkel P. (2013), The role of future‑oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, no. 80, pp. 444–452, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.007.
• Schomberg R. von (2007), From the ethics of technology towards and ethics of knowledge policy and knowledge, A working document from the European Commission Services.
• Schomberg R. von (2011), Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields, European Commission, Brussels. Schumpeter J.A. (1934), The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle, “Harvard Economic Studies”, vol. 46, Harvard College, Cambridge.
• Schuurbiers D. (2011), What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 17(4), pp. 769–788, doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.
• Selin C. (2011), Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 17, pp. 723–737, doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.
• Shamoo A.E., Resnik D.B. (2014), Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
• Shrader‑Frechette K.S. (1994), Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman and Littlefield, Boston.
• Stahl B.C. (2013), Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging ramework, “Science and Public Policy”, no. 40(6), pp. 708–716, doi:10.1093/scipol/sct067.
• Stahl B.C., McBride N., Wakunuma K., Flick C. (2014), The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, no. 84, pp. 74–85, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.001.
• Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. (2013), Developing a framework for responsible innovation, “Research Policy”, no. 42, pp. 1568–1580, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
• Stirling A. (2010), Keep it complex, “Nature”, no. 468, pp. 1029–1031, doi:10.1038/4681029a.
• Sutcliffe H. (2011), A report on responsible research and innovation, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science‑society/document_library/pdf_06/rri‑report‑hilary‑sutcliffe_en.pdf [accessed: 14.05.2016].
• Torgersen H., Schmidt M. (2013), Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve?, “Futures”, no. 48, pp. 44–54, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002.
• Wing S. (2002), Social responsibility and research ethics in community‑driven studies of industrialized hog production, “Environmental Health Perspectives”, no. 110(5), pp. 437–444.
• Wright D., Gellert R., Gutwirth S., Friedewald M. (2011), Minimizing Technology Risks with PIAs, Precaution, and Participation, “IEEE Technology and Society Magazine”, pp. 47–54.
• Wynne B. (1993), Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 2, pp. 321–337, doi:10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/0208-6018.328.04