On the interconnected nature of risk and responsibility in the research and development of new and emerging technologies

被引:4
作者
Malakar, Yuwan [1 ,2 ]
Lacey, Justine [1 ]
机构
[1] Commonwealth Sci & Ind Res Org, Responsible Innovat Future Sci Platform, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Ecosci Precinct, 41 Boggo Rd, Dutton Pk, Qld 4102, Australia
关键词
Australia; responsible innovation; risk analysis; risk governance; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; COMMUNICATION; GOVERNANCE; NEED;
D O I
10.1111/risa.14229
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Risk analysis of new and emerging technologies requires innovative approaches that are agile, exploratory, and can accommodate broad stakeholder engagement and perspectives. Existing theories of risk governance and responsible innovation suggest that operationalizing guiding principles for engagement such as inclusion and reflection may provide a useful approach to the risk analysis of these technologies. Yet, methodologies to systematically assess how we might operationalize such guiding principles in risk analysis are limited in existing risk research. We contribute to filling this gap by demonstrating a practical methodology for examining and documenting how research and development (R & D) professionals operationalize inclusion and reflection in risk analysis and what value this provides to risk analysis in the R & D context. We use the Australian nanotechnology R & D sector as our case study, interviewing 28 experts to examine how R & D professionals have operationalized inclusion and reflection into their risk analysis practices, generating three findings. First, we describe how our research design enables the successful translation of theory into a methodology that supports an empirical assessment of the integration of these guiding principles into risk analysis practice. Second, we argue that successfully and systematically integrating inclusion and reflection in risk analysis fosters a wider understanding and identification of risk through the activation of multi-actor and multi-institutional stakeholder engagement processes. Third, we outline how this research depicts the outward-facing and introspective nature of risk analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:1325 / 1338
页数:14
相关论文
共 87 条
[11]   Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks [J].
Aven, Terje ;
Renn, Ortwin .
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2020, 23 (09) :1121-1134
[12]   Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management [J].
Aven, Terje .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2012, 32 (10) :1647-1656
[13]  
Barnard AS, 2010, NAT NANOTECHNOL, V5, P271, DOI [10.1038/NNANO.2010.25, 10.1038/nnano.2010.25]
[14]  
Bosso C. J., 2012, GOVERNING UNCERTAINT, DOI [10.4324/9781936331055, DOI 10.4324/9781936331055]
[15]   Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue [J].
Bostrom, Ann ;
Loefstedt, Ragnar E. .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2010, 30 (11) :1645-1662
[16]  
Bowman D. M., 2017, EMBEDDING NEW TECHNO, V1, DOI [10.1201/9781315379593, DOI 10.1201/9781315379593]
[17]   The complexity of public engagement [J].
Cormick, Craig .
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY, 2012, 7 (02) :77-78
[18]  
Cox L. A., 2013, Improv. Risk Anal, V158, P3
[19]   Public Engagement and Nanotechnology in Australia [J].
Dalton-Brown, Sally .
CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS, 2016, 25 (03) :518-525
[20]   The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards [J].
Doorn, Neelke .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2015, 35 (03) :354-360