IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i3p294-305..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development

Author

Listed:
  • Erik de Bakker
  • Carolien de Lauwere
  • Anne-Charlotte Hoes
  • Volkert Beekman

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is about an interactive and comprehensive development of new technologies, also addressing social needs and ethical issues. But how do these ambitions of RRI relate to the practice of technological innovations? Nanotechnology is currently a large-scale techno-scientific development that offers many chances and opportunities but also raises concerns. Focusing on the issues of power, information (asymmetries) and responsibility we will describe the Dutch policy, assessments and debates on nanotechnology in general and on nanofood in particular. RRI assumes a willingness of all stakeholders to share or communicate information, but the case of nanofood exemplifies that industry can be reluctant to do this because of the fear that discussions will take a ‘wrong direction’. We conclude that information asymmetries can be a principal problem for a more inclusive nanofood development and that policies that wish to strengthen RRI should take this into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik de Bakker & Carolien de Lauwere & Anne-Charlotte Hoes & Volkert Beekman, 2014. "Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 294-305.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:294-305.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scu033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Woodson, Thomas S. & Hoffmann, Elina & Boutilier, Sophia, 2021. "Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Pataki, György & Bajmócy, Zoltán & Málovics, György & Gébert, Judit, 2019. "Miről szól(hatna) a felelősségteljes kutatás és innováció?. Rendszerkonform versus transzformatív megközelítés [What is responsible research and innovation about? Contrasting the reform and transfo," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 286-304.
    4. Karly Ann Burch & Dawn Nafus & Katharine Legun & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AgTech through located response-ability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 455-474, June.
    5. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:294-305.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.