Responsible Innovation and Climate Engineering. A Step Back to Technology Assessment

Author:

Stelzer HaraldORCID

Abstract

AbstractMuch in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is part of a participatory turn within the Technology Assessment (TA) and Science and Technology Studies (STS) community. This has an influence also on the evaluation of Climate Engineering (CE) options, as it will be shown by reference to the SPICE project. The SPICE example and the call for democratisation of science and innovation raise some interesting concerns for the normative evaluation of CE options that will be addressed in the paper. It is by far not clear, or so it will be argued, how much of the innovation process of CE technologies should be put in the hands of social actors and the wider public. This is due not only to special features about CE technologies but also to some more principle concerns against some features of participatory RRI approaches. Still, this does by no way mean that ethical and societal issues in the context of CE technologies should be ignored. Rather, the paper will argue that one can take a step back to expert TA linked to the evolution of approaches of ethical impact analysis in this area. This does not only lead to reconsider the emphasis on participation and democratisation of research and innovation, but also opens up for an alternative evaluative framework for CE technologies developed in the last part of the paper.

Funder

German Research Foundation

Austrian Science Fund

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management,Business and International Management

Reference64 articles.

1. Baer, P., and C. Spash. 2009. Is climate change cost-benefit analysis defensible: A critique of the stern review. In Science for policy, ed. A. Guimarães Pereira and S. Funtowicz, 167–192. New Delhi: New Oxford University Press.

2. Bechmann, G., M. Decker, U. Fiedeler, and B.J. Krings. 2007. Technology assessment in a complex world. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3 (1): 6–27.

3. Blok, V., and P. Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible innovation, ed. B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, and J. van den Hoven, vol. 2, 19–35. Cham: Springer.

4. Blok, V., L. Hoffmans, and E.F.M. Wubben. 2015. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2): 147–164.

5. Borgmann, A. 2012. The setting of the scene. Technological fixes and the design of the good life. In Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar ration management, ed. C.J. Preston, 189–199. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3