Amme, Calls for background research on RRI, to which ethicists, legal and governance scholars, and innovation research scholars responded. s 1 NS-018 custom synthesis innovative element will be the shift in terminology, from responsibility (of folks or organized actors) to accountable (of research, improvement PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307840 and innovation). The terminology has implications: who (and where) lies the duty for RI being Responsible This may well result in a shift from becoming responsible to “doing” accountable improvement. t The earlier division of labour around technologies is visible in how distinctive government ministries and agencies are responsible for “promotion” and for “control” of technologies in society (Rip et al. 1995). There is a lot more bridging on the gap involving “promotion” and “control”, plus the interactions open up possibilities for changes within the division of labour. u The reference to `productive’ is an open-ended normative point, a Kantian regulative notion as it have been. It indicates that arrangements (as much as the de facto constitution of our technology-imbued societies) might be inquired into as to their productivity, without having necessarily specifying beforehand what constitutes `productivity’. That will be articulated through the inquiry. v Cf. Constructive TA with its strategy-articulation workshops (Robinson 2010), exactly where mutual accommodation of stakeholders (which includes civil society groups) about general directions happens outside normal political decision-making. w In both cases, standard representative democracy is sidelined. This might bring about reflection on how our society really should organize itself to manage newly emerging technologies, with far more democracy as one possibility. There happen to be proposals to consider technical democracy (Callon et al. 2009) plus the suggestion that public and stakeholder engagement, when becoming institutionalized, introduce components of neo-corporatism (Fisher and Rip 2013: 179).pRip Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2014, ten:17 http:www.lsspjournal.comcontent101Page 13 ofIn an earlier short article within this series, Zwart et al. (2014) emphasize that in RRI, compared with ELSA, “economic valorisation is offered extra prominence”, and see this as a reduction, and a reduction they may be concerned about. On the other hand, their powerful interpretation (“RRI is supposed to help investigation to move from bench to market, as a way to make jobs, wealth and well-being.”) appears to become based on their general assessment of European Commission Programmes, in lieu of actual information about RRI. I’d agree with Oftedal (2014), employing the exact same references as he does, that the emphasis is on course of action approaches in which openness, transparency and dialogue are essential. y With RRI becoming pervasive inside the EU’s Horizon 2020, and also the attendant reductions of complexity, this is a concern, and some thing may be completed about it inside the sub-program SwafS (Science with and for Society). See http:ec.europa.euresearchhorizon2020pdf work-programmesscience_with_and_for_society_draft_work_programme.pdf z The European Union’s activities are more than making funding opportunities, there might be effects within the longer term. The Framework Programmes, for example, have developed spaces for interactions across disciplines and nations, and particularly also among academic science, public laboratories and industrial study, which are now commonly accepted and productive. The emergence of those spaces has been traced in some detail for the programmes BRITE and ESPRIT in the early 1980s, by Kohler-Koch and.