Amme, Calls for background studies on RRI, to which ethicists, legal and governance scholars, and innovation studies scholars responded. s One innovative element would be the shift in terminology, from duty (of individuals or organized actors) to responsible (of study, APS-2-79 web improvement PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307840 and innovation). The terminology has implications: who (and where) lies the duty for RI being Accountable This may perhaps result in a shift from becoming responsible to “doing” accountable improvement. t The earlier division of labour about technologies is visible in how distinctive government ministries and agencies are accountable for “promotion” and for “control” of technology in society (Rip et al. 1995). There’s much more bridging with the gap among “promotion” and “control”, along with the interactions open up possibilities for alterations inside the division of labour. u The reference to `productive’ is definitely an open-ended normative point, a Kantian regulative idea since it were. It indicates that arrangements (up to the de facto constitution of our technology-imbued societies) may very well be inquired into as to their productivity, devoid of necessarily specifying beforehand what constitutes `productivity’. That will be articulated through the inquiry. v Cf. Constructive TA with its strategy-articulation workshops (Robinson 2010), exactly where mutual accommodation of stakeholders (including civil society groups) about overall directions happens outdoors standard political decision-making. w In both situations, conventional representative democracy is sidelined. This may possibly cause reflection on how our society must organize itself to manage newly emerging technologies, with far more democracy as a single possibility. There have been proposals to think about technical democracy (Callon et al. 2009) plus the suggestion that public and stakeholder engagement, when becoming institutionalized, introduce components of neo-corporatism (Fisher and Rip 2013: 179).pRip Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2014, 10:17 http:www.lsspjournal.comcontent101Page 13 ofIn an earlier article in this series, Zwart et al. (2014) emphasize that in RRI, compared with ELSA, “economic valorisation is provided a lot more prominence”, and see this as a reduction, as well as a reduction they’re concerned about. Even so, their robust interpretation (“RRI is supposed to assist study to move from bench to marketplace, in an effort to make jobs, wealth and well-being.”) seems to be primarily based on their all round assessment of European Commission Programmes, instead of actual information about RRI. I’d agree with Oftedal (2014), making use of the exact same references as he does, that the emphasis is on process approaches in which openness, transparency and dialogue are important. y With RRI becoming pervasive in the EU’s Horizon 2020, and also the attendant reductions of complexity, this can be a concern, and anything could be completed about it inside the sub-program SwafS (Science with and for Society). See http:ec.europa.euresearchhorizon2020pdf work-programmesscience_with_and_for_society_draft_work_programme.pdf z The European Union’s activities are greater than creating funding opportunities, there may be effects in the longer term. The Framework Programmes, as an example, have designed spaces for interactions across disciplines and nations, and especially also involving academic science, public laboratories and industrial research, which are now frequently accepted and productive. The emergence of these spaces has been traced in some detail for the programmes BRITE and ESPRIT within the early 1980s, by Kohler-Koch and.