Odpowiedzialność badań i innowacji z punktu widzenia uniwersyteckiego transferu technologii
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.328.04Słowa kluczowe:
odpowiedzialność badań i innowacji, odpowiedzialne innowacje, polityka badań naukowych, transfer technologiiAbstrakt
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.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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].
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Carson R. (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton‑Mifflin, New York.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Douglas H. (2009), Science, Policy, and the Value‑Neutral Ideal, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Google Scholar
Edsall J.T. (1975), Scientific freedom and responsibility, “Science”, no. 188(4189), pp. 687–693.
Google Scholar
Einstein A. (1939), Letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Einstein.shtml [accessed: 13.05.2016].
Google Scholar
Elliott K.C. (2011), Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research, Oxford University Press, New York.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Forge J. (2008), The Responsible Scientist: A Philosophical Inquiry, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Frankel M.S. (2012), Regulating the boundaries of dual‑use research, “Science”, no. 336(6088), pp. 1523–1525.
Google Scholar
Garud R., Gehman J. (2012), Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: evolutionary, relations and durational, “Research Policy”, no. 41(6), pp. 980–995.
Google Scholar
Geels F.W. (2010), Ontologies, socio‑technical transitions (to sustainability) and the multi‑level perspective, “Research Policy”, no. 39(4), pp. 495–510.
Google Scholar
Glerup C., Horst M. (2014), Mapping “social responsibility” in science, “Journal of Responsible Innovation”, no. 1(1), pp. 31–50.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen M., Smeby J.‑C. (2005), Industry Funding and University Professors’ Research Performance, “Research Policy”, vol. 34, pp. 932–936.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Hellstrom T. (2003), Systemic innovation and risk: technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation, “Technology in Society”, no. 25, pp. 369–384.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Iatridis K., Schroeder D. (2016), Responsible Research and Innovation in Industry, The Case for Corporate Responsibility Tools, Springer, Cham–Heidelberg–New York–Dordrecht–London.
Google Scholar
Jonas H. (1984), The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Google Scholar
Kearnes M. (2013), Performing synthetic worlds: Situating the bioeconomy, “Science and Public Policy”, no. 40(4), pp. 453–465, doi:10.1093/scipol/sct052.
Google Scholar
Kitcher P. (2001), Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford University Press, New York.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Lee P. (2013), Patents and the University, “Duke Law Journal”, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 25–26.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Longino H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Google Scholar
Maynard A.D. (2015), The (nano) entrepreneur’s dilemma, “Nature Nanotechnology”, no. 10(3), pp. 199–200, doi:10.1038/nnano.2015.35.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Merton R.K. (1973), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Google Scholar
Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. (2002), Evolutionary theorizing in economics, “Journal of Economic Perspectives”, no. 16(2), pp. 23–46.
Google Scholar
O’Gorman C., Byrne O., Pandya D. (2008), How Scientists Commercialise New Knowledge Via Entrepreneurship, “Journal of Technology Transfer”, vol. 33, p. 23.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Owen R., Bessant J., Heinz M. (2013), Responsible Innovation, Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Pandza K., Ellwood P. (2013), Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation, “Research Policy”, no. 42(2013), pp. 1112–1125.
Google Scholar
Pellizzoni L. (2004), Responsibility and environmental governance, “Environmental Politics”, no. 13(3), pp. 541–565.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Pielke R. (2007), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Popper K. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Reiser J.M., Bulger R.E. (1997), The social responsibilities of biological scientists, “Science and Engineering Ethics”, no. 3(2), pp. 137–143.
Google Scholar
Resnik D.B. (1998), The ethics of science: An introduction, Routledge, London.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Rogers E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Shamoo A.E., Resnik D.B. (2014), Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
Google Scholar
Shrader‑Frechette K.S. (1994), Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman and Littlefield, Boston.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Stirling A. (2010), Keep it complex, “Nature”, no. 468, pp. 1029–1031, doi:10.1038/4681029a.
Google Scholar
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].
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
