Steven M. Flipse

Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: redefining what is 'part of the job' of researchers in industry.

In response to an increasing amount of policy papers stressing the need for integrating social and ethical aspects in Research and Development (R&D) practices, science studies scholars have conducted integrative research and experiments with science and innovation actors. One widely employed integration method is Midstream Modulation (MM), in which an ‘embedded humanist’ interacts in regular meetings with researchers to engage them with the social and ethical aspects of their work. While the possibility of using MM to enhance critical reflection has been demonstrated in academic settings, few attempts have been made to examine its appropriateness in industry. This paper describes the outcomes of a case study aiming to find out firstly whether MM can effectively be deployed to encourage and facilitate researchers to actively include social and ethical aspects in their daily R&D practice, and secondly to what extent the integration activities could form an integral part of the engaged industrial researchers’ professional activities. Our data show that after MM, researchers display increased reflexive awareness on the social and ethical aspects of their work and acknowledge the relevance and utility of such aspects on their daily practice. Also, all participants considered actively reflecting on social and ethical aspects to be part of their work. Future research on the role of MM in industrial settings could focus on how to embed social and ethical integration as a regular part of innovation practice. We suggest that one possibility would be through aligning social and ethical aspects with innovation Key Performance Indicators.

Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective

Media attention to genetically modified (GM) foods has been described as negative, especially in Europe. At the turn of the century appreciation of GM foods was at an all-time low in Europe. Food manufacturers are still careful in the use, development and communication of GM based food products, and their caution influences innovation processes. In this study we explore the link between media attention and innovation practice. Media attention to three specific high-profile GM food cases is described and linked to innovation practice. We elucidate the order of events in these cases and show that publics could only to a limited extent have formed an opinion on GM based food products based on scientifically valid data through written English media. Innovators in food biotechnology may benefit from this knowledge for future product development and marketing, and we suggest that innovation may benefit from early stakeholder involvement and communication activities.

The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development

New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) based innovations, e.g. in the field of Life Sciences or Nanotechnology, frequently raise societal and political concerns. To address these concerns NEST researchers are expected to deploy socially responsible R&D practices. This requires researchers to integrate social and ethical aspects (SEAs) in their daily work. Many methods can facilitate such integration. Still, why and how researchers should and could use SEAs remains largely unclear. In this paper we aim to relate motivations for NEST researchers to include SEAs in their work, and the requirements to establish such integration from their perspectives, to existing approaches that can be used to establish integration of SEAs in the daily work of these NEST researchers. Based on our analyses, we argue that for the successful integration of SEAs in R&D practice, collaborative approaches between researchers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities seem the most successful. The only way to explore whether that is in fact the case, is by embarking on collaborative research endeavours.

Setting Up Spaces for Collaboration in Industry Between Researchers from the Natural and Social Sciences

Policy makers call upon researchers from the natural and social sciences to collaborate for the responsible development and deployment of innovations. Collaborations are projected to enhance both the technical quality of innovations, and the extent to which relevant social and ethical considerations are integrated into their development. This could make these innovations more socially robust and responsible, particularly in new and emerging scientific and technological fields, such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Some researchers from both fields have embarked on collaborative research activities, using various Technology Assessment approaches and Socio-Technical Integration Research activities such as Midstream Modulation. Still, practical experience of collaborations in industry is limited, while much may be expected from industry in terms of socially responsible innovation development. Experience in and guidelines on how to set up and manage such collaborations are not easily available. Having carried out various collaborative research activities in industry ourselves, we aim to share in this paper our experiences in setting up and working in such collaborations. We highlight the possibilities and boundaries in setting up and managing collaborations, and discuss how we have experienced the emergence of ‘collaborative spaces.’ Hopefully our findings can facilitate and encourage others to set up collaborative research endeavours.

The DNA of socially responsible innovation: Social and natural scientists need to establish mutual understanding and a common language to efficiently work together

The nature and purpose of academic and industrial research has slowly been changing during the past decades. Academic research, in particular of the applied nature, is more frequently done in collaboration with industrial partners and attracts funding from industry or private foundations that support research. Even public funding agencies increasingly require scientists to justify their work by explicitly asking them to clarify potential social relevance. Industrial research and development (R&D) not only needs to come up with sophisticated and competitive new products and services but also has to demonstrate social or environmental responsibility to contribute to a more positive corporate image

The wicked problem of Socially Responsible Innovation

One of the goals of our article on the DNA of Socially Responsible Innovation (SRI) was to start a discussion on how to implement SRI in research and development (RD we feel that exactly such dialogue is necessary to advance innovation to the next level. We acknowledge that the “ecosystem” of science, technology and society is much larger than the collaborative space between the natural scientist and the social sciences scholar that we describe in our article. Yet, our article portrays a starting point to “flesh out” SRI, making it tangible in innovation practice. Unfortunately, in discussions about SRI, perspectives for action are often omitted, which disconnects theoretical analyses on what SRI entails from “what …

A cybernetic dream: how a crisis in social sciences leads us to a Communication for Innovation-Laboratory

After the first paradigm shift from the deficit model to two-way communication, the field of science communication is in need of a second paradigm shift. This second shift sees communication as an inherently distributed element in the socio-technical system of science and technology development. Science communication is understood both from a systems perspective and its consecutive parts, in order to get a grip on the complex and dynamic reality of science, technology development and innovation in which scientists, industrial and governmental partners and the lay public collaborate. This essay reflects on the under-development of system thinking in science communication and the need to fix this. Legitimation for the second paradigm shift is found in the ‘crisis in social sciences’ that has led to a revival of system theory to balance the deterministic thinking in our grounding discipline. This essay concludes with the idea of a ‘Communication for Innovation-Lab’ as an experimental setting in which whole/part thinking in science communication can be shaped according to this second paradigm shift, forming seed crystals for future developments. Abstract

Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education

ABSTRACT Students in senior pre-university education encounter difficulties in the application of mathematics into physics. This paper presents the outcome of an explorative qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs about improving the transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics. We interviewed 10 mathematics and 10 physics teachers using a semi-structured questionnaire that was based on an algebraic transfer problem. Almost all teachers acknowledged this transfer problem and considered it to be important. We found a continuum of teachers’ beliefs about aspects influencing transfer, including beliefs on improving this transfer. Together with identified improvement aspects about coherent mathematics education, these may help reduce physics teachers’ frustrations who spend extra time on re-teaching mathematics. Teachers think that transfer does not happen, because students see both subjects as separate disciplines. Contrary to most physics teachers, most mathematics teachers do not feel the need to collaborate with physics teachers. We found two extreme, opposite beliefs about the transfer of algebraic skills into physics. An intermediate group believes that only an integrated approach can solve the transfer problem. Some of the teachers’ beliefs could be organised into a beliefs system. Further research could investigate to which extent such beliefs systems exist and which beliefs these contain.

Science communication for uncertain science and innovation

Differences in viewpoints between science and society, like in for example the HPV-vaccination debate, should be considered from a socio-technical system perspective, and not solely from a boundary perspective between the lay public, medical doctors and scientists. Recent developments in the HPV-vaccination case show how the debate concerning uncertainty amongst scientists and the lay audience is mostly focussed on the improvement of understanding of lay people about why vaccination is important. This boundary thinking leads to the idea that once the boundary is crossed, the problem is solved. However, such ‘bug-fixing’ and technocentric boundary thinking is not leading to sustainable resolutions. We view science communication as a key aspect of the socio-technical system of scientific, technological and innovation development, in which the vaccine and its corresponding immunisation program are socially constructed. A process of construction that takes place all the way from the fuzzy front-end of their scientific conception until the marketing back-end. The authority, legitimacy and therefore the license to operate of scientists, engineers and policy makers are discussed, primarily at this boundary, but develops during the whole process of innovation. During upstream processes, professional roles and according behaviour are also defined. In this commentary we state that the development of science communication strategies should also start upstream, and that the ‘bug-fixes’ of improved listening to (and not by) the lay audience, could be become a more sustainable solution to the HPV-debate if this process of listening by experts considers the socio-technical system of vaccination as a whole. One of the outcomes might be that the dialogue between scientists, policy makers and the lay audience is about the various possible scenarios that deal with inherent scientific and societal uncertainty in which the inevitable uncertainty of science becomes more explicit. It is not known according whether this will lead to more profound interactions, however we would like to explore this possibility a bit more from an uncertain innovation process point of view. This could clear the way for a process of co-inquiry into ideas concerning shared responsibility and accountability. The latter means that the focus in the debate is more balanced and concerns the social network, and is not purely focussed on the betterment ofunderstanding by the lay audience. Moreover, in this way we consider communication and interaction between actors not as a means of crossing any boundaries (since that may be impossible), but as a means to perturb a status quo or equilibrium within a network of actors. This makes apparent boundaries more explicit and discussable. Methods of interaction, e.g. based on concepts like midstream modulation, may lead to another discourse and give way to new dynamics in this social system.

Organizing a Collaborative Development of Technological Design Requirements Using a Constructive Dialogue on Value Profiles: A Case in Automated Vehicle Development

Abstract Following societal and policy pressures for responsible innovation, innovators are more and more expected to consider the broader socio-ethical context of their work, and more importantly, to integrate such considerations into their daily practices. This may require the involvement of ‘outsiders’ in innovation trajectories, including e.g. societal and governmental actors. However, methods on how to functionally organize such integration in light of responsible innovation have only recently started to emerge. We present an approach to do just that, in which we first develop value profiles of the involved actors, and second, design a workshop setting that allows innovators to develop design requirements in collaboration with representatives of parties that are not usually involved in such innovation design practices. Using a case study in automated vehicle development, we positively demonstrate the possibility and utility of our approach. We stress that in this study we wish to demonstrate the functionality of our developed method, and did not search for scientifically valid outcomes regarding this technical field.