Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
21 - Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
from Part IV - Politics, Power, State
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
Two decades ago, John Urry and I outlined a tentative agenda for the sociology of the environment. Science was seen as implicated not simply as a central and necessary authority in providing solutions to our most perilous environmental problems but also in contributing to those same problems. Yet, what we underestimated at the time was the critical role of governance in science and technology and its role in modulating environment-society relations. For if we are to understand the differential contribution of science and technology to environmental change, we need to understand better the impact of traditional forms of science governance and the potentials of alternative configurations. In this chapter I discuss four paradigms through which science and technology have been governed, situating each in historical context. Starting with the ubiquitous ‘linear model of innovation’ I locate its origins and provenance, how it came to be replaced, at least in part, through a ‘grand challenges’ paradigm of science policy and funding, how this paradigm in turn has been subjected to rigorous analytical critique by a co-production model of science and society, and how this model, in part, is being put into practice through a framework of responsible research and innovation.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 347 - 361Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adam, B., Groves, G., 2011. Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S., Leach, M., Lucas, H., Millstone, E., 2009. Silver Bullets, Grand Challenges and the New Philanthropy. STEPS Working Paper 24, STEPS Centre, Brighton. Downloaded from www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/STEPSWorkingPaper24.pdf (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Bush, V., 1945. Science – The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Calvert, J., 2013. Systems Biology: Big Science and Grand Challenges. BioSocieties 8, 466–79.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., Kearnes, M. (eds.), 2016. Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Collingridge, D., 1980. The Social Control of Technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Douglas, H., 2003. The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions Between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly 40, 59–68.Google Scholar
Edgerton, D., 2004. The Linear Model Did Not Exist. In Grandin, K., Worms, N., Widmalm, S. (eds.), The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications. Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach, MA, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar
EPSRC. 2013. Framework for Responsible Innovation. Downloaded from https://epsrc.ukri.org/index.cfm/research/framework/ (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy 29, 109–23.Google Scholar
European Commission, 2007. The European Research Area: New Perspectives. Green Paper 04.04.2007. Text with EEA relevance, COM161, EUR 22840 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
European Commission, 2013. Fact Sheet: Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020. Downloaded from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/FactSheet_Science_with_and_for_Society.pdf (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Finkel, A., 2018. What Kind of Society Do We Want to Be? Keynote Address by Australian Government Chief Scientist, Human Rights Commission ‘Human Rights and Technology’ Conference, Four Seasons Hotel, Sydney. Downloaded from: www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Human-Rights-and-Technology.pdf (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Flink, T., Kaldewey, D., 2018. The New Production of Legitimacy: STI Policy Discourses Beyond the Contract Metaphor. Research Policy 47, 14–22.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1993. Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures 25, 739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Godin, B., 2006. The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework. Science, Technology & Human Values 31, 639–67.Google Scholar
Grinbaum, A., Groves, C., 2013. What Is ‘Responsible’ about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues. In Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, London, pp. 119–42.Google Scholar
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., Wynne, B., 1997. Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., 2003. Policy without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences 36, 175–95.Google Scholar
Hessels, L., van Lente, H., 2008. Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Research Policy 37, 740–60.Google Scholar
Irvine, J., Martin, B., 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. Pinter, London.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., 2006. The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance. Social Studies of Science 36, 299–330.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., 2003. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41, 223–44.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., (ed.) 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., 2016. The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. W. W. Norton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., Simmet, H., 2017. No Funeral Bells: Public Reason in a ‘Post-Truth’ World. Social Studies of Science 47, 751–70.Google Scholar
Jump, P., 2014. ‘No Regrets’, Says Outgoing EPSRC Chief David Delpy: ‘Thick Skin’ Helped Research Council Boss Take the Flak for Controversial Shaping Capability Measures. Times Higher Education, 17 April 2014. Downloaded from: www.timeshighereducation.com/news/no-regrets-says-outgoing-epsrc-chief-david-delpy/2012694.article (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Pols, A., Macnaghten, P., 2018. Organisational Review and Outlooks: Wageningen University and Research. In van der Molen, F., Consoli, L., Ludwig, D., Pols, A., Macnaghten, P. (eds.) Report from National Case Study: The Netherlands. Deliverable 9.1, Responsible Research and Innovation Project, pp. 29–54. Downloaded from: www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_NETHERLANDS.pdf (26 September 2018).Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., 2004. Animals in Their Nature: A Case Study of Public Attitudes on Animals, Genetic Modification and ‘Nature’. Sociology 38, 533–51.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., 2010. Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative Structures, Public Responses and Emerging Nanotechnologies. Environment & Planning A 41, 23–37.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., Chilvers, J., 2014. The Future of Science Governance: Publics, Policies, Practices. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy 32, 530–48.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., Szerszynski, B., 2013. Living the Global Social Experiment: An Analysis of Public Discourse on Geoengineering and Its Implications for Governance. Global Environmental Change 23, 465–74.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., Davies, S., Kearnes, M., 2015 online. Understanding Public Responses to Emerging Technologies: A Narrative Approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Policy. http://goo.gl/7mOfDvGoogle Scholar
Miller, C., 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Social Order. In: Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge, New York, pp. 247–85.Google Scholar
Merton, R., 1973. The Normative Structure of Science. In Storer, N. (ed.), The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 267–78.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Parry, S., Walls, J., 2016. The EPSRC’s Policy of Responsible Innovation from a Trading Zones Perspective. Minerva 54, 151–74.Google Scholar
National Council on Bioethics. 2012. Emerging Biotechnologies: Technology, Choice and the Public Good. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Owen, R., 2014. The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s Commitment to a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1, 113–17.Google Scholar
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J., 2012. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy 39, 751–60.Google Scholar
Owens, S., 2015. Knowledge, Policy, and Expertise: The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1970–2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrow, C., 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., 1962. The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 1, 54–73.Google Scholar
Rip, A., 2016. The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3, 290–304.Google Scholar
Rose, N., 2006. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a Framework of Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42, 1568–80.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 23, 262–94.Google Scholar
Stirling, A., 2014. Emancipating Transformations: From Controlling ‘the Transition’ To Culturing Plural Radical Progress. STEPS Working Paper 64, STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
von Schomberg, R., 2013. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, London, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R., Curtis, S., 2017. Framing Fracking: Exploring Public Responses to Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 26, 89–104.Google Scholar
Yearley, S., 2008. Nature and the Environment in Science and Technology Studies. In: Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 921–47.Google Scholar
Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L., van Rooij, A., 2014. Adapt or Perish? Assessing the Recent Shift in the European Research Funding Arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by