Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Inescapable Frameworks: Ethics of Care, Ethics of Rights and the Responsible Research and Innovation Model

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Notwithstanding the EU endorsement, so far Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is discussed as regards its definition, its features and its conceptual core: innovation and responsibility. This conceptual indeterminacy is a source of disagreements at the political level, giving rise to a plurality of outcomes and versions upheld within the same model of governance. Following a Charles Taylor’s suggestion, this conceptual opening of the RRI model can be explained by the existence of plural, clashing moral frameworks: discourse ethics, Aristotelian ethics, care ethics, dignitarian ethics, rights-based moralities etc. Given the diffusion in the RRI literature of references to care ethics and its justification of participation and responsibility, I will compare the conceptual premises of this philosophical line with those of ethics of rights, which have been criticised by advocates of care ethics. I will argue that public engagement based on only needs cannot lead to responsible outcomes since it produces however the exclusion of some needs, covered instead by rights. In order for participation to be effective, rights or an alliance between the two perspectives is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Lubberink and his colleagues (Lubberink et al. 2019, p. 4) talk, instead, of a normative and procedural approach.

  2. An example of how rights can work as normative anchor points in the case of human enhancement is given by Ruggiu 2018b.

  3. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-apr09_en.pdf.

  4. http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/pdf/nano-consultation_en.pdf.

  5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2512793

  6. Soering v. the United Kingdom (Appl. 14,038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989 Series A No. 161, par. 105.

  7. https://www.amnesty.it/scarica-report-time-to-recharge-corporate-action-and-inaction-to-tackle-abuses-the-cobalt-supply-chain/. Accessed 03 December 2017.

References

  • Arnaldi, Simone, and Guido Gorgoni. 2016. Turning the tide or surfing the wave? Responsible research and Innovation, fundamental rights and neoliberal virtues. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 12 (6): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barben, D., E. Fischer, C. Selin, and D.H. Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. E. Hackett, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bataille, Georges. 1998. Conferenze sul non-sapere e altri saggi. Genova: Costa & Nolan.

  • Beck, Urlich. 1986. Risikogesellschaft. Auf Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (It. trans. La società del rischio. Verso una seconda modernità. Roma: Carocci, 2000).

  • Beck, Urlich. 2000. Risk society revisited: Theory, politics and research programmes. In Risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory, ed. Barbara Adam, Urlich Beck, and Joost Van Loon, 211–230. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blind, Knut. 2008. Regulatory foresight: Methodologies and selected applications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75: 496–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, Vincent. 2014. Look Who's talking: Responsible Innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 171–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation: Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. Bert-Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling E. Swierstra, and Jan van den Hoven, 19–35. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, Vincent, Bart Gremmen, and Renate Wesselink. 2016. Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainability: The role of individual virtuous competence. Business & Professional Ethics Journal 34 (3): 297–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, Norberto. 1990. L’età dei diritti. Torino: Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, Roger. 2008. Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorbeck-Jung, Barbel, and Claire Shelley-Egan. 2013. Meta-regulation and nanotechnologies: The challenge of responsibilisation within the European Commission’s code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Nanoethics 7 (1): 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. The law empire. Cambridge (Mass.): The Belkamp Press of Harvard University Press.

  • Eberlein, Burkard, and Kerwer Dieter. 2004. New governance in the European Union: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (1): 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, Josef. 1972. Vorverständnis und Methodenwahl in der Rechtsfindung. Rationalitätsgrundlagen richterlicher Entscheidungspraxis. Frankfurt A. M.: Fisher Athenäum Taschenbücher.

  • Fineman, Martha Alberson. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 2 (1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, Hans Georg. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (It. Trans., Verità e metodo, Milano: Fratelli Fabbri Editori, 1983).

  • Grinbaum, Alexei, and Christopher Groves. 2013. What is "responsible" about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, John R. Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 119–142. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, Christopher. 2013. Horizons of care: From future imaginaries to responsible research and innovation. In Shaping emerging technologies: Governance, innovation, discourse, ed. Kornelia Konrad, Christopher Coenen, Anne Dijkstra, Colin Milburn, and Harro van Lente, 185–202. Berlin: IOS Press/AKA-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, Christopher. 2015. Logic of choice and logic of care? Uncertainty, technological mediation and responsible innovation. Nanoethics 9 (3): 321–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2014. The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.968437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin .1927. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (It. Trans., Essere e tempo. Milano: Longanesi & C, 1997).

  • Heydebrande, Wolf. 2003. Process rationality as legal governance: A comparative perspective. International Sociology 18 (2): 325–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hühn, Matthias P. 2018. Responsible innovation: A Smithian perspective. Philosophy of Management 17: 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governance science. Minerva 41: 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamishima, Yuko, Bart Gremmen, and Hikari Akizawa. 2018. Can merging a capability approach with effectual processes help us define a permissible action range for AI robotics entrepreneurship? Philosophy of Management 17: 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, Matthew and Rip, Arie. 2009. The Emerging Governance Landscape of Nanotechnology. In Jenseits von Regulierung. Zum Politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. eds. Stefan Gammel, Andreas Lösch and Alfred Nordmann, 97–121. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

  • Kelman, Mark. 1987. A guide to critical legal studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, Bert-Jaap, Angela Di Carlo, Luca Nocco, Vincenzo Cassamassima, and Elettra Stradella. 2013. Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: Robotics challenging the European constitutional framework. International Journal of Technoethics 4 (2): 15–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2005. From realpolitik to Dingpolitik or how to make things public. In Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 14–43. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Joyce, Hirschfeld Emily, and Wedding James. 2016. A patient-designed do-it-yourself mobile technology system for diabetes promise and challenges for a new era in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 315 (14): 1447–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, Ronald, Erica Palmerini, Bert-Jaap Koops, Andrea Bertolini, Pericle Salvini, and Federica Lucivero. 2017. Regulatory challenges of robotics: Some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law, Innovation and Technology 9 (1): 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louden, Robert B. 2007. On some vices of virtue ethics. In Virtue ethics, eds. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote, 201–216. Oxford readings in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lubberink, Rob, Vincent Blok, Johan van Ophemb, and Onno Omtaa Onno. 2019. Responsible innovation by social entrepreneurs: An exploratory study of values integration in innovations. Journal of Responsible Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1572374.

  • Lyall, Catherine and Tait, Joyce. 2005. Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In New modes of governance. Developing an integrated policy approach to science, technology, risk and the environment, Lyall Catherine, Tait Joyce. 1–17. Adelshot: Ashgate.

  • MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame.

  • Macnaghten, Phil, and Jason Chilvers. 2013. The future of science governance: Publics, Policies, Practice. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy 31: 530–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metha, Michael D. 2004. From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technology? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24 (1): 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, Alfred. 2005. Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techne 8 (03): 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review 66 (2): 273–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard. 2014. Responsible research and innovation: Options for research and innovation policy in the EU. European research and Innovation area board (ERIAB), foreword visions on the European research area (VERA), 10.04.2015.

  • Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Eerik Fisher, and Dave Guston. 2013. A framework for responsible Innovation. In Maggie Heintz, ed. Responsible Innovation, Richard Owen, and John Bessant, 27–50. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, Baldassare. 2003. Per un'ermeneutica dei diritti umani. Torino: Giappichelli.

  • Pellé, Sophie, and Bernard Reber. 2015. Responsible innovation in the light of moral responsibility. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2): 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, Chistopher J., and Fern Wickson. 2016. Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology. Technology in Society 45: 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puig de la Bellacasa, Maria. 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 85–106.

  • Reyes, Irwin, Primal Wijesekera, Joel Reardon, Amit Elazari Bar On, Abbas Razaghpanah, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, and Serge Egelman. 2018. “Won’t somebody think of the children?” Examining COPPA compliance at scale. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 3: 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1983. Temps et récit. Tome I. Paris: Édition du Seuil (It. trans. Tempo e racconto, vol. I. Milano: Jaca Book, 1991).

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1984. Temps et récit II. La configuration dans le récit de fiction. Paris: Édition du Seuil (It. trans. La configurazione nel racconto di finzione. Milano: Jaca Book, 1987).

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1985. Temps et récit III. Le temps raconté. Paris : Édition du Seuil (It. trans. Il tempo raccontato. Milano: Jaca Book, 1994).

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 2005. Il fondamentale e lo storico. Note su sources of the self di Charles Taylor, Ars interpretandi. Annuario di ermeneutica giuridica 10: 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberge, Jonathan. 2011. What is critical hermeneutics? Thesis Eleven 106 (1): 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2013a. Temporal perspectives of the nanotechnological challenge to regulation. How human rights can contribute to the present and future of nanotechnologies. Nanoethics 7 (3): 201–215.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2013b. Dominating non-knowledge. Rights, governance and uncertain times. Cosmopolis, 9(2). Available at https://www.cosmopolisonline.it/articolo.php?numero=IX22013&id=19. Accessed 07 Sept 2019.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2015a. Anchoring European governance: Two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points’. Nanoethics 9 (3): 217–235.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2015b. The self and the other in post-modern European societies. In Identity and migration in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. MariaCaterina La Barbera, 77–96. Cham: Springer.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2016. A reply to Groves. Nanoethics 10 (1): 111–116.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2018a. Human rights and emerging technologies: analysis and perspectives in Europe, with foreword by Roger Brownsword. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2018b. Implementing a responsible, research and innovation framework for human enhancement according to human rights: The right to bodily integrity and the rise of ‘enhanced societies. Law, Innovation and Technology 10 (1): 82–121.

  • Ruggiu, Daniele. 2019. Models of anticipation within the responsible research and innovation framework: The two Rri approaches and the challenge of human rights. Nanoethics 13 (1): 53–78.

  • Sand, Martin. 2018. Virtues and vices of innovators. Philosophy of Management 17: 79–95.

  • Sandel, Michael J. 1984. The procedural republic and the unencumbered self. Political Theory 12 (1): 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheingold, Stuart A. 1974. The politics of rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Joanne, and David M. Trubek. 2002. Mind the gap: Law and new approaches to governance in the European Union, European Law Journal 8 (1): 1–18.

  • Simakova, Elena, and Chistopher Coenen. 2013. Visions, hype, and expectations: A place for responsibility. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 241–266. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, Gerry. 1998. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50 (155): 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallacchini, Maria Chiara. 2009. Governing by values. Eu ethics: Soft tool, hard effects. Minerva 47: 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, Job, and Vincent Blok. 2018. A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1839-z.

  • van den Hoven, Jeroen., Jacob, Klaus., Nielsen, Linda., Roure, Françoise., Rudze, Laima., and Stilgoe, Jack. 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of Experts Group on the State of the Art in Europe on responsible research innovation. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union Luxembourg.

  • Viola, Francesco. 2000. Etica e metaetica dei diritti umani. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, Rene. 2010. Organising public responsibility: On precaution, code of conduct and understanding public debate. In Understanding nanotechnology. Philosophy, policy and publics, ed. Ulrich Fiedeler,

  • von Schomberg, Rene. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and Innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. Marc Dusseldorp and Richard Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlagvon.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, Rene. 2013. A vision of responsible research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation, ed. Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, 51–74. London: John Wile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1922. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Julie, and Joan Tronto. 2004. Political practices of care: Needs and rights. Ratio Juris 17 (4): 425–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, Fern. 2016. The ontological objection to life Technosciences. In Science, philosophy and sustainability: The end of the Cartesian dream, ed. Angela Guimaraes Pereira and Silvio Funtowicz, 61–77. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaria, Giuseppe. 1990. L’arte dell’interpretazione. Padova: Cedam.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work takes into account the objections raised by Christopher Groves in 2015 to my article published by Nanoethics in 2013. The paper has benefitted greatly from the comments of two unknown reviewers, as well as the editors of this publication. In particular, I would like to thank MariaCaterina La Barbera and Francesco Viola for their suggestions on ethics of care, and Alan Neilson for reviewing the text. I am very grateful to Vincent Blok and Job Timmermans for allowing me to respond to the criticisms made by Groves in a wider and more detailed manner.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Law, and International Studies, University of Padova, via VIII febbraio, 2, 35122, Padova, Italy

    Daniele Ruggiu

Authors
  1. Daniele Ruggiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Ruggiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruggiu, D. Inescapable Frameworks: Ethics of Care, Ethics of Rights and the Responsible Research and Innovation Model. Philosophy of Management 19, 237–265 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00119-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00119-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation