Ethics and innovation essay

93© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 L. Asveld et al. (eds.), Responsible Innovation 3, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64834-7_6

Chapter 6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

Federico Vasen

Abstract The Responsible Research and Innovation framework emerged from the reflection on a socially desirable form of development of emerging technologies in Europe and the United States. In this chapter, I discuss how to further elaborate the framework in order to effectively engage in a dialogue with science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in the developing world, particularly in Latin America. In order to take on this task, I describe first the discussion about uncritical processes of STI policy transfer. Then I analyze the dominant framework of science, technology and innovation policies in the region. Finally, I propose topics that I think should be included in the RRI agenda; themes that will allow the framework to be more responsive to issues related to other geographical contexts. The proposed topics include: (a) expansion of its focus beyond emerging technologies, (b) inclusion of resistance to technologies and contentious politics, (c) global perspective on the production of innovations, (d) building of theoretical links with inclusive innovation frameworks and (d) the development of sensitivity towards intercultural dialogue.

6.1 Introduction

Throughout the 2000s, a moderate paradigm change in the theoretical frameworks that underpin Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy was recognizable. The hegemony of National Innovation Systems and evolutionary economics was questioned and new ideas intended to complement them with concepts originated in other fields of the social sciences. New perspectives nuance the centrality of com- petitiveness and economic growth as the key objectives of STI policies. It is argued that these generic economic objectives do not necessarily lead to the social benefits that “trickle-down” perspectives promise. Accordingly, the new generation of STI

F. Vasen (*) Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]

94

policy intends to address social objectives in a more immediate way, although with- out denying the importance of economic growth or competitiveness. Elsewhere I have called this change a “post-competitive turn” (Vasen 2016a).

The development of the aforementioned new theoretical frameworks express a disenchantment with traditional approaches; those of which have not met the expec- tations of policy makers and analysts in terms of the social benefits that science and technology was expected to provide for society at large. This is particularly contro- versial in Latin America and other regions within the developing world, where tra- ditional innovation policies are still hegemonic. Science and technology are still being considered mainly tools to increase greater socioeconomic development and quality of life and the analysis of their risks and negative externalities is usually not considered along with their potential benefits.

Frameworks such as the orientation towards ‘grand challenges’ (Kallerud et al. 2013), ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI)1 (Owen et al. 2013) or ‘inclusive innovation’ (Bortagaray and Gras 2014) can be regarded as part of the ‘post- competitive’ turn. Out of these three, only inclusive innovation has been taken up and discussed intensively by Latin American scholars. This may not be a surprise, since this perspective focuses on the issues of inequality and poverty that are a main concern in the developing world. In contrast, “responsible innovation” or “grand challenges” are hardly mentioned in the STI policy discourse in Latin America. Do these frameworks address issues that are irrelevant to the local context? Are there ideological preconceptions that prevent a proper discussion on the frameworks? In this paper, I analyze specifically the discourse on RRI. I argue that the concerns that motivate the framework are indeed relevant to the Latin American context and are not visible in mainstream discourse. However, the tools that the proponents of RRI suggest should be used to deal with these concerns are expressed in terms that are very alien to local STI governance and political cultures.

In the next section, I discuss the conflicts linked to uncritical processes of STI policy transfer. Then I describe the origin of the multiple perspectives within the RRI framework. I intend to identify what they have in common and I relate these ideas to the discourse on STI policy in Latin America. Finally, I discuss why the main tenet of the RRI discourse is relevant to Latin America, but the tools and cases proposed do not fit with the main local concerns. I propose then five issues that should be included in the agenda of a RRI framework that can effectively make a contribution to local STI policy studies. Moreover, “a view from the periphery” might also be useful to enrich the European perspective on RRI with new perspec- tives and ideas.

1 Although the concept advanced by most scholars focuses on innovation, the EU perspective also discusses responsible scientific research. This has been crucial for the current widespread use of the acronym “RRI” instead of “RI”. In this paper, although I use the RRI acronym, I concentrate on innovation rather than on scientific research.

F. Vasen

95

6.2 The Problem of Importing Theoretical Frameworks in STI Policy

Regarding the problem of importing ideas from other geographical contexts, the history of STI policy in Latin America has been marked by the uncritical transfer to the region of theoretical frameworks originated in developed countries. This prac- tice has been criticized since the 1960s. At that time, Latin American authors had been highlighting the fact that the level of development of local science and technol- ogy systems and the peripheral position of the region in global academic communi- ties required a specific treatment. This standpoint originated as a response to supply-driven science policies based on the linear model that international organiza- tions proposed for the region during the postwar period (Oteiza 1992; Finnemore 1993; Feld 2015). Latin American thinkers noted that the emphasis on capacity building as a prerequisite to progress on the path of technological and social devel- opment neglected research agendas linked to issues with greater local social impact (Herrera 1972; Varsavsky 1969; Vasen 2016b).

This line of thought has been embraced by the majority of the local academics involved in science policy studies. Arocena and Sutz (2000) noted that the concept of National Innovation Systems -that had been created as an analytical concept to describe how the most dynamic national configurations on innovation had devel- oped- was proposed in Latin America as a prescription, as a kind of “model” that emerging countries should emulate in order to achieve the long-awaited develop- ment. The example of the “Asian tigers”, particularly South Korea, was repeated ad nauseam as a proof of the viability of this path, without considering the many dif- ferences between the Latin American and Asian contexts. According to Dagnino and Thomas (2001) these processes are not restricted to a simple translation of policy frameworks in which a signifier is translated into a different language but attempts to preserve the underlying meaning. What actually is taking place is what the authors call a transduction process in which a signifier is inserted into a new context and this creates new meanings (functions, dysfunctions, unwanted effects, etc). This situation, which Dagnino and Thomas described for the case of Latin American STI policy has been described in broader terms by Delvenne and Thoreau (2012) for all non-OECD countries.

6.3 What Is Responsible (Research and) Innovation?

Since the 1980s, a conceptual framework based on evolutionary economics and the idea of innovation began to take shape (Elzinga and Jamison 1995). Its main objec- tive was to strengthen “innovation systems” that group together all the different stakeholders who are part of the processes that lead to the creation of new technolo- gies. It is assumed that the existence of strong and dynamic systems of innovation contribute to central economic objectives, such as growth and competitiveness. The

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

96

generation of innovations that yield economic benefits becomes the privileged means through which science and technology improve a countries’ economy and the quality of life of its inhabitants (Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993).

The “responsible innovation” framework is not clearly represented by this scheme. Its central focus is not on economic competitiveness but in the governance of emerging technologies, emphasizing the inclusion and participation of a variety of actors (Owen et al. 2013; Guston 2014). The framework originates from the con- cept of “responsible development” in the context of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the United States in the early 2000s. (Roco et al. 2011). This approach is heir to previous research done on the potential unintended consequences of scien- tific research and technological development. These issues, which initially were addressed by the philosophy of science, bioethics and technology assessment, received a new impetus in the early 1990s with the ELSI component (Ethical, Legal and Social Implications) of the Human Genome Project. In 1994, it was proposed to change the acronym ELSI with ELSA, replacing the idea of ethical, legal and social “implications” with “aspects”. The objective was to abandon a linear view regarding the impacts. The change was aimed at including the discussion of particular issues which had potentially more diffuse implications and required a greater degree of public participation. The idea of “aspects” could not be easily restricted to questions of risk, safety and health, which could be framed and analyzed only with expert knowledge (Thoreau 2013; Zwart et al. 2014).

Shortly after the research in the field of ELSI / ELSA consolidated in the 2000s, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) arose. It was proposed as a more comprehensive concept, intended to encompass work on ELSA but also to give it a wider dimension and integrate it with broader areas of science policy. To understand the genealogy of this approach, it is also useful to refer back to the debate on biotechnology, particularly on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A potentially very critical view regarding emerging technologies emerged in the European context that created discomfort in the industrial elites. Years later, it was feared that nanotechnology could be subject to the same critique. Rip (2006) employed the term “nanophobia-phobia” (a phobia within the scientific and indus- trial community about the emergence of a nanophobia within the public) to refer to these concerns. Later, the concept of RRI broadened its scope beyond the specific field of nanotechnology and today occupies a central place in the European Union’s STI funding programme, Horizon 2020, under which is one of the cross-cutting concepts of the component “Science with and for Society”, whose total budget for 2014 and 2015 was 91 million euros (European Union 2014a; Galiay 2014).

The responsible innovation framework is best characterized by the multiple ele- ments attached to it rather than by a single definition. According to Zwart et  al. (2014), this is a consequence of the top-down manner in which the concept –the signifier “RRI”- was proposed by the policy elite before any meaning was fixed. However, it is possible to distinguish some characteristic features that appear in the writing of most authors who use the term “RRI” which connotes that there is a more or less defined framework. Stilgoe et  al. (2013) point out that what characterizes RRI is the intention to create spaces for discussion on aspects of innovations that are

F. Vasen

97

matters of public interest or concern. Thus, with the participation of all affected stakeholders (government, academia, industry, civil society), it is expected that the innovations produced reflect more appropriately the values and interests of a wider set of actors and not only of those who promote the technology. These authors argue that responsible innovation has four integrated dimensions (anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness) that should guide processes of institutional reflection and assessment of scientific and technological initiatives.

Moreover, the European Union, which has been one of the main promoters of the framework has not offered an official definition of Responsible Research and Innovation, but refers to a characterization offered at one Competitiveness Council meeting, in which it was described as “a process for better aligning research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society. It implies close coop- eration between all stakeholders in various strands comprising: science education, definition of research agendas, access to research results and the application of new knowledge in full compliance with gender and ethics considerations” (European Union 2014b).2

Thirdly, the research group led by Jeroen van den Hoven (2013) based at Delft Technical University has also advanced a definition with a somewhat different focus. The vision of these authors arises in the context of the discussion about tech- nology and values. Based on the notion that technology is not neutral, they argue that it is possible to influence the development of emerging technologies in order to incorporate values that are considered desirable. Thus, it is expected that new tech- nologies can solve moral dilemmas by creating technical designs that expand the possibilities of action faced by actors trying to solve ethical problems. This proposal is based on the idea of Value-Sensitive Design, a perspective that emerged at Stanford during the 1970s. Originally dealing with information technology, it was later extended to other emerging technologies. It should be noted that the Dutch research council (NWO) has created a specific funding program for responsible innovation inspired by these ideas. Another feature of this approach is its focus on technology and not science, so it is rather a vision of Responsible Innovation and not of Responsible Research and Innovation.

Critical perspectives on the RRI approach have also emerged recently. They see a pro-industry bias in the concept and argue that by institutionalizing and promoting public participation in a top-down manner RRI proponents could limit the potential for criticism; a possibility previously enabled by participatory mechanisms devel- oped since the 1990s (Thoreau 2013). The upstream total stakeholder participation that RRI proposes would essentially prevent the emergence of a radical opposition and resistance movement and not necessarily lead to a democratic opening. In this sense, it is argued that RRI would be an ally of traditional technological develop- ment, allowing its proponents to “stop and think a minute” but without truly putting into question the technological pathways and overall benefits (Rip 2014). Finally, it has also been noted that this framework may increase the bureaucratization of

2 This definition is based in the six point agenda that appeared in previous EU documents: engage- ment, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance.

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

98

scientific research and innovation through RRI-compliance assessments, which may become required points of passage; although they would be prerequisites they would not necessarily foster reflection of the actors involved.

The starting point of RRI is a much friendlier vision of market dynamics and inno- vation that more radical previous reflections have linked to public participation in technology assessment. In this sense, responsible innovation is much more reformist than a revolutionary proposal. Its fundamental difference from other more conven- tional approaches is its claim that the dissemination and social appropriation of emerg- ing technologies is not a phenomenon to be analyzed in purely economic terms (as can be seen in works like Bozeman et  al. 2008). The importance it gives to consensus building among all sectors of society is also remarkable. The RRI framework in all its versions has both an analytical (“the adoption of a technology must be understood from a multidimensional perspective”) and a normative component (“the participation of more stakeholders in early stages of development should be facilitated”) that advo- cates against economic reductionism and the monopoly of expert knowledge.

6.4 Responsible Innovation and Socio-economic Development in Developing Countries

As previously noted, the agenda of STI policy in developing countries is strongly linked to the paradigm of the economics of innovation and the pursuit of competi- tiveness. While this is also true in the developed world, in the Latin American scene these frames are virtually hegemonic and do not leave much space for more reflec- tive or alternative paths. The prevalence of a still strongly enlightened vision on the potential of technology (Macnaghten and Guivant 2011) can be thought of as a reason for this.

The central question that should be asked then is, “How useful or relevant is the framework of responsible innovation to the situation of developing countries, par- ticularly in Latin America?” In this sense, I think it is important to distinguish what we might call the “core ideas” of the RRI perspective from the tools and enforce- ment mechanisms that have been developed in order to put the ideas into practice. As noted by Delvenne et  al. (2011), the tools, derived mostly from the European tradition of public participation in science and technology and technology assess- ment, historically have not been echoed in the Latin American scene. However, this does not mean that the issues that are the root of the RRI approach are unrelated or irrelevant in these regions. Although public participation mechanisms in science and technology did not develop in the European way, numerous examples of critical reaction against technological developments can be identified in Latin America, particularly those related to environmental issues. This critique was conducted in most cases not institutionally but primarily as a phenomenon of resistance and mobilization. This situation indicates that conflicts over the “alignment of research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society” also occur in

F. Vasen

99

developing countries. The mechanisms employed however cannot be captured with the tools available in frameworks such as “responsible innovation”.

At this point, there are two conceptual alternatives available. The first would involve noting the inadequacy of the concept of RRI to characterize conflicts linked to the social acceptability of technologies in Latin America and criticize the ‘Eurocentric’ content of the notion, in a post-colonialist fashion. On the other hand, a second option would recognize the importance of establishing a dialogue between the conceptual frameworks developed in Europe and the Latin American agenda, and intend to contribute to the construction of notions that may simultaneously have global reach and address the specific local contexts. This second option presupposes the distinction between a shared ideological core and specific mechanisms and appli- cations that are dependent on the context in which they are applied. I assume then that the concept of RRI involves concerns that are shared by stakeholders globally and are potentially applicable to all regions. However, the way the concept has been deployed in Europe does not match the main topics in the Latin American agenda in STI policy. Even if there are shared problems, the concepts and notions mobilized are mostly foreign to the local context. I do not want to suggest that this is a miscon- ception of the developers of the RRI framework, as it was explicitly constructed for the European context. The main task is then to emphasize which topics are particu- larly relevant to the discussion of anticipation and social acceptability of emerging technologies in developing countries and to include them in the RRI agenda.

6.5 A ‘Responsible’ Agenda for Innovation in Developing Countries

One of the main precautions to be taken when discussing STI policies in Latin American is that, unlike in the context of the developed world, both science and technology are addressed primarily as tools to achieve a higher level of socioeco- nomic development. In this sense, there is a dominant view that STI are a means towards further development. The critical perspective that involves considering sci- ence and technology not only as tools for improving the quality of life but as threats and risk carriers (Beck 1992) is highlighted by some social actors but is absent in STI policy discourse. Unlike other approaches towards the risks of emerging tech- nologies, responsible innovation is more optimistic about the possibility of control- ling these risks and integrating their assessment into the innovation process (Zwart et al. 2014). However, even if RRI represents a more pro-innovation perspective, the idea of controlling the risks of technology as a whole is only hardly acknowledged by Latin American STI policies as a priority. All attempts to promote policies that engage with the risks and unintended consequences of technology must then chal- lenge what I call the “luxury argument”: the idea that all discussion of negative aspects of technology is an intellectual luxury for developing countries. The discus- sion of risks in an anticipatory and integrated manner, as outlined in the approach of

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

100

responsible innovation, could be then referred to as a luxury that cannot be afforded by developing countries. In this view, resources should be invested in the advance- ment of science and technology and only then, if necessary, the question of risks should be addressed. Discussing risks beforehand could slow down a countries’ economic development and be detrimental in the long run. However, this perspec- tive involves ignoring the consequences of not treating the risks of technology with a precautionary approach, as shown by many environmental disasters or forms of intensive exploitation of natural resources.

To confront this “luxury argument”, I therefore believe that it is necessary to pose a general principle to address the issue of the risk of technological develop- ment in developing countries3 stating that “the question of social acceptability of new technology should always be analyzed in conjunction with the question of socioeconomic development.” This is neither a genius idea nor is it a novelty, but keeping this idea in mind can pave the way when raising the issue of the risks of technology and social acceptability to a set of policy-makers who see STI policy only under the lens of innovation and competitiveness, and who characterize all other reflection as superfluous. This is particularly the case when resources are scarce and they subscribe to a trickle-down approach and state that competitiveness- oriented policies will eventually shed satisfactory results for all.

In the next sections, I will present five discussion points linked to the dynamics of conflicts related to the social acceptance of technologies and the “alignment” between research and innovation and societal expectations, needs and values. My intention is to introduce an issue agenda for a concept of responsible innovation more appropriate within the context of developing countries. This does not mean that the framework of RRI is fundamentally wrong. It is just a reminder that in order to meet its goal of aligning technological developments with social expectations in a different geographical context, new aspects have to be highlighted and new tools need to be developed.

6.5.1 Expand the Scope of Responsible Innovation Beyond Emerging Technologies

Although the focus of the RRI framework has been on emerging technologies, the broader problem being addressed is that of social acceptability and the alignment of social expectations with technological development. In this sense, I argue here that a vision of responsible innovation that takes into account that the particularities of the developing world should not be limited to new and disruptive technologies. While it is true that emerging technologies pose new challenges that require the

3 This principle is naturally not exclusive for developing countries. It just becomes more important in that context since the issue of socioeconomic development has a much more important place on their political agenda.

F. Vasen

101

creation of spaces for reflection, acceptability challenges are still an issue with more mature technologies. “Emerging technologies” usually refers to high-tech develop- ments such as nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology.

In contrast, in the developing world there are many cases where social accept- ability issues related to technology are not necessarily linked with high-tech and emerging technologies. In the case of Latin America, there are conflicts linked to new technologies such as biotechnology as in the case of GM maize in Mexico and Colombia (Fitting 2014) or soy in Argentina (Arancibia 2013) or new technologies regarding the extraction of natural resources such as open pit mining. But among the most contentious cases are also situations related to older technologies such as Belo Monte hydroelectric dams in Brazil (Hall and Branford 2012) or the installation of pulp plants in Argentina and Uruguay (Vara 2007; Baya-Lafitte 2016). All these cases involve questions regarding the social acceptance of technologies and the alignment of innovation with social expectations. Responsible Innovation as a framework should not necessarily be restricted to the cases in which emerging tech- nologies are involved and tools have to be developed to deal with issues of accept- ability of mature technologies.

6.5.2 Contentious Politics as Part of the Process of Social Acceptability of Technologies

Literature related to the concept of responsible innovation, ELSI/ELSA or technol- ogy assessment, deals mostly with cases of public participation in science and tech- nology within the context of developed countries. The methodologies implemented, such as consensus conferences, citizen juries or scenario workshops, presuppose a context in which dialogue in formal contexts is still possible and stakeholders engage in a rational debate.

There is however a more acute dimension of controversies linked to the accep- tance of technologies in which the conflict has escalated to levels at which the appli- cation of these methodologies is not possible. In these circumstances, social participation is expressed not institutionally but routed through radical resistance (Pestre 2003; Bauer 1995). In these cases the social actors who oppose a particular technology adopt the disruptive techniques of contentious politics (demonstrations, blockades, boycotts) in order to add more power to their claim.Clearly it cannot be said that these forms of protest are specific to the developing world, as we can find many cases also in the United States, for example, controversies around fracking in the Midwest or the anti-nuclear movement (see Nelkin 1984 for one of the first analyzes on the subject). In the developing world however, the large differences in power between the promoters of technology and those who resist it, added to a diminished presence of the state, distrust in institutions and lower levels of education creates a context in which radical resistance is seen by protest groups as a more viable way to gain public visibility and influence political decisions.

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

102

Multiple cases that show this trend can be found in Latin America. In the previ- ous section I mentioned the protest movement against the installation of a pulp-mill plant on the border between Argentina and Uruguay. In that situation, many factors came together: the rejection of potential water, air and visual pollution that the plant would produce, the discussion of whether the Finnish company, Botnia, was bring- ing outdated technology to the region no longer accepted in Europe and the diplo- matic conflict generated by its location on an international boundary (Vara 2007). In this regard, many considered this protest as a case of NIMBY conflict because the discussion was mainly about localization and not about the technology itself. The bridge connecting Argentina and Uruguay at that point was closed for almost four years by the protest. The Argentine government took environmentalists’ claim as a national cause and even brought the case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Not in all cases such a strong commitment from the government can be found. In the resistance to mega open-pit mining projects in the Andes, the state appears as a partner of the mining companies rather than a supporter of local inhabitants. Local organizations partner with opposition politicians and other international environ- mental organizations through transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998). In most cases, protesters have set up roadblocks and triggered repressive action by the authorities (Origlia 2015). In the Patagonian town of Esquel a referen- dum took place in 2003 where people voiced their opposition against mega-mining projects. In these cases it was the protest and mobilization of the people who gener- ated the withdrawal of projects. It is hardly possible that in a climate of open conflict institutional mechanisms for technology assessment could have been useful to gen- erate a proposal satisfactory for all stakeholders.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that if the objective of the responsible innovation framework is to facilitate the social acceptance of technologies, it cannot be restricted to institutional mechanisms that can only work within certain contexts. It is necessary to think how to address conflict situations in which social participa- tion appears only in the most original form of resistance. It may be argued that the framework of responsible innovation should not develop tools to deal with these cases, since what these situations show is what happens when a preventive approach like responsible innovation is not followed through on. The solution would be then to implement the preventive measures recommended in the framework. My position is that, given the characteristics of the governance of STI in the region, the escala- tion of conflicts and the use of disruptive techniques of social protest is unavoidable in many cases. I am not maintaining the view that the intention of preventing the escalation of conflict through enlarged institutionalized public participation should be abandoned. But since power differences and lack of trust in institutions make resistance inevitable in many cases, it is necessary to find tools that enable respon- sible action in situations in which radical political action cannot be avoided.

F. Vasen

103

6.5.3 A Global View of Innovation Value-Chains

In today’s world, it is increasingly common that the technology development pro- cess takes place in multiple locations. While R&D, design and prototyping are often concentrated near the companies’ headquarters in developed countries, manufactur- ing and other polluting and energy-intensive industrial production processes are often carried out –outsourced- in countries in the developing world.

Developing countries are often the source of the raw materials needed for the production of innovations, such as coltan in Sub-Saharan Africa for electronics or lithium in Bolivia and northwestern Argentina for batteries. In addition, these coun- tries may also be recipients of technological waste, i.e. products at the end of their life cycle that are sent to developing countries as donations but are actually unusable products.

When reflecting on what it means to develop an innovation responsibly, it is necessary to include not only the undesirable impacts on its potential users but also the vision of all those who will be affected globally by the process of developing this technology and will participate in the new value chain. Fairphone, a mobile phone that comes with minerals obtained outside conflict zones and by paying decent wages to workers is an interesting example that addresses this dimension (Wernink and Strahl 2015).

These situations can be described as negative consequences of the globalization of the economy. To address these conducts, organizations such as the OECD (2011) have issued guidelines urging multinational companies to behave responsibly in the various countries in which they operate. A company’s reputation may be adversely affected by these actions, which can damage their own Corporate Social Responsibility strategy. However, neither potential failure to comply with the guide- lines nor potential reputational damage can provide a framework in which an irre- sponsible attitude in this regard can be adequately punished. Civil society can also play an important role making the irresponsible and criminal practices of companies visible.

While this point is not directly linked to the original focus of responsible innova- tion in emerging technologies, I think it is a central issue for a discussion agenda concerning the responsible development of technologies in a globalized world. The tools for risk analysis and public participation that RRI proposes should include the views of all those who will be involved in the global technological system created by this new technology and the positive and negative consequences they may face. This also includes the populations that will be affected by the globally distributed processes of resource extraction and manufacturing and not only consumers. Internalizing the greater number of externalities, both positive and negative, can be considered a responsible course of action.

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

104

6.5.4 Strengthen the Theoretical Link Between Responsible and Inclusive Innovation

In recent times, we have witnessed a growing interest in linking science, technology and innovation policy more directly with the problems of inequality and social inclusion. This trend is verified both by international organizations like the World Bank or the OECD (Paunov 2013; Dahlman et al. 2014) and academic researchers (Cozzens and Sutz 2012; Casas et al. 2014; Thomas 2012; Knorringa et al. 2012). Developing countries are the main beneficiaries of these policies because it is there where the most urgent needs of social inclusion are found.

The approaches currently available have different nuances and not all are nec- essarily aligned with the ideas of responsible innovation. While in general the need for specific STI policies to address the challenges of inequality and poverty are acknowledged, the approaches taken by international organizations focus on the need to include the “base of the pyramid” as consumers, and regard inclusive inno- vations as a means for expanding markets to a previously unreachable population (see for example Prahalad and Mashelkar 2010). In contrast, most academic visions regard beneficiaries not only as passive consumers but as citizens and inno- vators who can transform available technologies to suit their own needs and interests.

This brief comparison between existing frameworks on the subject reveals that it would be a mistake to think that inclusive innovation is necessarily responsible. Frameworks such as the “base of the pyramid” do not address the processes of including actors that is the central tenet of responsible innovation.4 Moreover, nei- ther the inverse statement is true. Not all responsible innovation is necessarily inclu- sive in the sense of “inclusive innovation”. The literature on responsible innovation is primarily concerned about the inclusion of all stakeholders in the design of emerging technologies. It could be the case of a technology developed along with the participation of all stakeholders but whose objective is not linked to the problem of social inclusion, in the sense that it is understood in the literature on inclusive innovation.

In short, what is important is to create a dialogue between the two theoretical reflections -inclusive and responsible innovation. It could be possible then to move forward in the development of a more integrated framework in order to ensure that all inclusive innovation is also responsible and every responsible innovation is inclusive or at least does not contribute to social segregation.

4 As Pansera (2014) noted, the main objective of this framework is to include the poor in the market economy. It puts no emphasis on social justice or transformation or other broader dimensions that could be related to responsible innovation.

F. Vasen

105

6.5.5 The Importance of Establishing Mechanisms for Intercultural Dialogue

Finally, one last point to which I want to draw attention is related to the origin of the values that the framework of responsible innovation tends to promote.5 Even if responsible innovation frameworks aim to include all potential actors in the innova- tion process, the challenge is even greater in situations of intercultural dialogue with indigenous peoples and other traditional knowledge holders. It is true that the prob- lem of cultural acceptance is not specific to only cases of the developing world. Cultural differences regarding the appropriation of technology occur also within Western cultures, as shown for example by Jasanoff (2005) in her study about per- ceptions of risk in biotechnology. However, the potential incommensurability when Non-Western cultures are involved is even greater. It could even be considered that modern technology, closely related to the project of Baconian-Galilean modern sci- ence, is a Western project in itself.

To avoid criticism of responsible innovation as a Eurocentric or colonial frame- work, it is necessary to incorporate sensitivity within RRI towards the issue of tra- ditional knowledge. The cases of biopiracy in which the intellectual property of indigenous groups was not recognized could be an example to consider and not to follow (Shiva 1997). However, this does not imply that any use of traditional knowl- edge automatically qualifies as responsible. The ‘science-wars’ in South Africa regarding AIDS therapy shows that ‘traditional knowledge’ is a contested and con- flictive notion when used to address current issues (Green 2012).

On a broader level, traditional knowledge should not be limited to specific applications but also considered in regard to the different conceptions of human welfare. Bolivia and Ecuador have adopted the idea of sumak kawsay or good liv- ing from aboriginal people, which conveys an idea of human development very different from the standard in the Western world (Radcliffe 2012). In short, it is important that a concept of responsible innovation incorporates criteria and tools for addressing problems of the social acceptance of technologies in intercultural contexts that conform to notions of justice, diversity and democracy (Olivé 2010). This will give the responsible innovation framework a broader scope and a greater capacity for understanding the dynamics associated with technology in the devel- oping world. Moreover, sensitivity to these issues is also currently strongly needed in the Western world where societies have become more and more multicultural.

5 It is worth noting that some definitions of RRI include an explicit mention to European values as an intrinsic part of RRI (von Schomberg 2013).

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

106

6.6 Conclusion

In this paper, my aim was to discuss responsible innovation within a broader geo- graphical context than usual studies. In this sense, I questioned whether the concept is relevant in order to analyze cases outside the region where it originated and whether it can be useful as a framework for public policy in those settings. I argued that the overall objective that inspires responsible innovation (the alignment research and innovation with the values, expectations and needs of society) is laudable and is not necessarily restricted to the European level. However, the tools that the framework RRI usually discusses are mostly linked to the European context and the tradition of technology assessment and public participation that has not been successfully devel- oped in other regions of the world. In turn, the overwhelming majority of empirical studies linked to the RRI framework are focused on Europe or North America.

In the fifth section, I pointed out five issues that should be considered in order to make the RRI framework more suitable within the context of developing countries, particularly Latin America. The issues mentioned have greater relevance in the con- text of developing countries. However, this does not mean they are only applicable to them. They can also serve to put more emphasis on issues that may have become blind spots in the European context, and a foreigner’s perspective can help to visual- ize them. Problems of the acceptance of mature technologies, the challenge of inter- cultural dialogue and the relationship between technology and social inclusion can occur in all geographical contexts.

Finally, this text does not seek to “sell” a concept or impose a buzzword in regions that have not shown much interest in it. My aim is to discuss what Latin American science and innovation policy studies can learn from developments tak- ing place in other regions, as well as what Europeans can learn from an outsider’s critique of the concepts they have created. In this sense, and in the case of Latin America, the framework of responsible innovation can be useful to incorporate into local science policy, still hegemonically dominated by the approach of innovation used for competitiveness, a broader view point that emphasizes a more critical approach to technological development and enhances the participation of more stakeholders. Achieving this could be an important step towards the creation of a more multidimensional science and technology policy; one that analyzes the contri- bution of innovation in terms that exceed economic outputs and that are closer to meeting the needs and expectations of society as a whole.

References

Arancibia, Florencia. 2013. Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina. Technology in Society 35: 79–92.

Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz. 2000. Looking at national systems of innovation from the south. Industry and Innovation 7: 55–75.

Bauer, Martin, ed. 1995. Resistance to new technology. Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

F. Vasen

107

Baya-Lafitte, Nicolas. 2016. Black-boxing sustainable development. Environmental risk assess- ment on the river Uruguay. In Knowing governance: The epistemic construction of political order, ed. Richard Freeman and Jan-Peter Voß, 237–256. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Bortagaray, Isabel, and Natalia Gras. 2014. Science, technology and innovation policies for inclu-

sive development: Shifting trends in South America. In Science, technology and innovation policies for development, ed. Gustavo Crespi and Gabriela Dutrénit, 255–285. Berlin: Springer.

Bozeman, Barry, John Hardin, and Albert Link. 2008. Barriers to the diffusion of nanotechnology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 17: 749–761.

Casas, Rosalba, Juan M.  Corona, and Roxana Rivera. 2014. Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en América Latina: entre la competitividad y la inclusión social. In Perspectivas Latinoamericanas en el Estudios Social de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y el Conocimiento, ed. Pablo Kreimer, Antonio Arellano Hebe Vessuri, and Léa Velho. México: Siglo XXI.

Cozzens, Susan, Judith Sutz. 2012. Innovation in informal settings: a research agenda. Discussion paper for GRIID Network, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2012. http:// www.idrc.ca/EN/Lists/Publications/Attachments/1130/IID%20Framework%20July%2029. pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2016.

Dagnino, Renato, and Hernán Thomas. 2001. Planejamento e políticas públicas de inovação: em direção a um marco de referencia latino-americano. Planejamento e políticas públicas – ppp 23: 205–231.

Dahlman, Carl, Esperanza Lasagabaster, Kurt Larsen, and Karthryn Hoffman. 2014. Inclusive innovation. Harnessing creativity to enhance the economic opportunities and welfare of the poor. Washington, DC: World Bank Group/Trade and Competitiveness.

Delvenne, Pierre, and François Thoreau. 2012. Beyond the ‘charmed circle’ of OECD: New direc- tions for studies of national innovation systems. Minerva 50: 205–219.

Delvenne, Pierre, Martin Erpicum, Pierre Hupet, and Federico Vasen. 2011. Modernités multiples et critique sociale des technologies en Europe et en Amérique latine. Cahiers de science poli- tique de l’Université de Liège 19.

Elzinga, Aant, and Andrew Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 572–592. London: Sage.

European Union. 2014a. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014–2015 16. Science with and for Society. Avaliable at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/ main/h2020-wp1415-swfs_en.pdf.

European Union. 2014b. Press release. 3353rd Council meeting Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) Brussels, 4 and 5 December 2014, http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/146048.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2017.

Feld, Adriana. 2015. Ciencia y política(s) en Argentina (1943–1983). Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

Finnemore, Martha. 1993. International organizations as teachers of norms. The United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cutural Organization and Science Policy. International Organization 47: 565–597.

Fitting, Elizabeth. 2014. “Cultures of corn” and anti-GM activism in Mexico and Colombia. In Food activism. Agency, democracy and economy, ed. Carole Counihan and Valeria Siniscalchi. London: Bloomsbury.

Galiay, Philippe. 2014. Responsible research and innovation: A cross cutting issue in Horizon 2020.  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4146 . Accessed 22 July 2017.

Green, Lesley. 2012. Beyond South Africa’s ‘Indigenous knowledge  – Science’ wars. South African Journal of Science 108: 44–54.

Guston, David. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44: 218–242.

Hall, Anthony, and Sue Branford. 2012. Development, dams and Dilma: The sage of Belo Monte. Critical Sociology 38: 851–862.

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

108

Herrera, Amílcar. 1972. Ciencia y política en América Latina. México: Siglo XXI. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United

States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kallerud, Egil, Effie Amanatidou, Paul Upham, Mika Nieminen, Antje Klitkou, Dorothy

Sutherland, Maria Lima Toivanen, Juha Oksanen, and Lisa Scordato. 2013. Dimensions of research and innovation policies to address grand and global challenges. Oslo: Nordisk insti- tutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning.

Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Knorringa, Peter, Cees van Beers, and André Leliveld. 2012. Frugal innovation in Africa. Tracking Unilever’s washing-powder sachets. In Transforming innovations in Africa: Explorative stud- ies on appropriation in African societies, 59–78. Leiden: Brill.

Lundvall, Bengt-Ake. 1992. National systems of innovation: An analytical framework. London: Pinter.

Macnaghten, Phil, and Julia Guivant. 2011. Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginery of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 20: 207–220.

Nelkin, Dorothy, ed. 1984. Controversy. Politics of technical decisions. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Nelson, Richard, ed. 1993. National systems of innovation: A comparative analysis. Oxford: OUP. Olivé, León. 2010. Conocimientos tradicionales e innovación. In Observaciones filosóficas sobre la

transdisciplinariedad, ed. Álvaro Peláez and Rodolfo Suárez, 107–129. Barcelona: Anthropos. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Delopment. 2011. Guidelines for multinational

enterprises. 2011 Edition. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115415-en. Accessed 20 June 2016.

Origlia, Gabriela. 2015. Famatina: la historia de un pueblo en Argentina que en nueve años expulsó a cuatro mineras. In: BBC Mundo, 11 Nov 2015. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noti- cias/2015/11/151111_argentina_famatina_expulsion_mineras_bd . Accessed 4 Mar 2016.

Oteiza, Enrique. 1992. El complejo científico y tecnológico argentino en la segunda mitad del siglo XX: la transferencia de modelos institucionales. In La política de investigación científica y tecnológica argentina - historia y perspectivas. Buenos Aires: CEAL.

Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.

Pansera, Mario. 2014. Discourses of innovation and development: Insights from ethnographic case studies in Bangladesh and India. PhD dissertation, University of Exeter. http://hdl.handle. net/10871/18523. Accessed 27 June 2016.

Paunov, Caroline. 2013. Innovation and inclusive development: A discussion of the main policy issues. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/01. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation. Paris: INRA. Prahalad, Coimbratore K and Ragunath Mashelkar. 2010. Innovation’s Holy Grail. Harvard

Business Review, July–August 2010. Radcliffe, Sarah. 2012. Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the

limits of decolonization in Ecuador. Geoforum 43: 240–249. Rip, Arie. 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15: 349–365. ———. 2014. The past and present of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 17. Roco, Mihail, Barbara Harthorn, David Guston, and Philip Shapira. 2011. Innovative and respon-

sible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. In Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020, ed. Mihail Roco, Chad Mirkin, and Mark Hersam, 561– 617. Berlin: Springer.

Shiva, Vandana. 1997. Biopiracy. The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge: South End Press.

Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.

F. Vasen

109

Thomas, Hernán. 2012. Tecnologías para la inclusión social en América Latina: de las tecnologías apropiadas a los sistemas tecnológicos sociales. Problemas conceptuales y soluciones estraté- gicas. In Tecnología, Desarrollo y Democracia, ed. Hernán Thomas, Guillermo Santos, and Mariano Fressoli. Buenos Aires: MINCyT-UNQ.

Thoreau, François. 2013. Embarquement immédiat pour les nanotechnologies responsables. Comment poser et re-poser la question de la réflexivité? PhD dissertation in Social and Political Sciences, University of Liège.

Van den Hoven, Jeroen. 2013. Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz. Chichester: Wiley.

Vara, Ana María. 2007. Sí a las papeleras, no a la vida. En torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina. Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia 25: 15–49.

Varsavsky, Oscar. 1969. Ciencia, política y cientificismo. Buenos Aires: CEAL. Vasen, Federico. 2016a. ¿Estamos ante un giro poscompetitividad en la política de ciencia, tec-

nología e innovación? Sociologias (Porto Alegre) 41: 242–268. Vasen Federico. 2016b. What does a “National Science” Mean? Science Policy, Politics and

Philosophy in Latin America. In: Science studies during the Cold War and beyond, ed. Aronova  E. and Turchetti S.  Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Von Schomberg, René. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, 51–74. London: Wiley.

Wernink, Tessa, and Carina Strahl. 2015. Fairphone: Sustainability from the inside-out and out- side- in. In Sustainable value chain management. Delivering sustainability through the core business, ed. Michael D’heur, 123–140. Cham: Springer.

Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences Society and Policy 10.

6 Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda