Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Research Ethics

In: Ethics, Integrity and Policymaking: The Value of the Case Study [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2022. Chapter 2.
.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Research Ethics

Giovanna Declich et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

The case study presented in this chapter concerns the policy adopted by the European Commission for better management of the relationship between science and society, with a focus on the ethics of scientific research. This policy, since 2011, has been based on the notion of responsible research and innovation (RRI). We discuss the RRI strategy as an attempt to include ethics within a broader policy framework to respond to the challenges emerging in the European research and innovation landscape. To do so, we examine the origins of the RRI idea, its incorporation into Commission policy, as well as its effectiveness and its impacts. We further discuss whether it has served its purpose in light of the fact that the terminology associated with RRI has been progressively downplayed in more recent years. Positive impacts exist, but also difficulties as RRI aims to take root and enhance and strengthen its ethical aspects. In conclusion, some lessons learned from this ten-year policy effort are presented, exploring the potentialities and limits of such an approach for the renewal of research ethics, and discussing what can be the theoretical and practical legacy of RRI for contemporary scientific and technological innovation policies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Burget, M., E. Bardone, and M. Pedaste. 2017. Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics. 23: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chadwick, R., and Z. Hub. 2013. Editorial: from ELSA to responsible research and promisomics. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2013 (9): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2195-7819-9-3. - DOI
    1. Charitidis, Costas, Eleni Spyrakou, Vassilis Markakis, and contribution by Ron Iphofen. 2019. Thematic priorities report. Pro-RES Deliverable D2: 1.
    1. d’Andrea, Luciano, Marta Federico, Khama Nina and Vase Susanna. 2017. FIT4RRI D1.1–Report on the Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1434349 https://zenodo.org/record/1434349#.X8YFlM1Kg2x accessed 16 July 2021. - DOI
    1. Declich, Giovanna, and Alfonso Alfonsi. 2020. Framework in the RRI context. Pro-RES PROmoting Ethics and Integrity in Non-Medical RESearch–Deliverable D3: 5.

LinkOut - more resources