1. Frameworks for Responsible
Innovation
j.stilgoe@ucl.ac.uk
@jackstilgoe
with acknowledgements to Richard Owen and
Phil Macnaghten

7. Synthetic biology

10. 1. What is the purpose?
2. Why do you want to do it?
3. What are you going to gain
from it?
4. What else is it going to do?
5. How do you know you are
right?

11. ‘Research Councils have a responsibility to
scrutinize the potential impacts and risks of
emerging technologies, and encourage the
researchers we fund to do likewise.... The
challenge will be to define an approach that
promotes creativity and innovation in research
underpinned by a commitment to its
responsible development.’
David Delpy, ESPRC CEO

12. The what, the how and the why of
innovation
Products
• What are the likely risks
and benefits ?
• How will the risks and
benefits be distributed?
• What other impacts can
we predict ?
• How might these
change in the future?
• What don’t we know
about?
• What might we never
know about?
Processes
• How should research
and innovation take
place?
• How should standards
be drawn up and
applied?
• How should risks and
benefits be defined and
measured?
• Who is in control?
• Who will take
responsibility if things
go wrong?
• What if we are wrong?
Purposes
• Why should this
research be
undertaken?
• Who will benefit ?
• What are the
alternatives?
• Who gets to decide?

13. Pathologies of innovation
– Late lessons from early warnings (EEA)
– The dilemma of control (David Collingridge)
– Systemic risk and normal accidents (Charles Perrow)
– Technological lock-in (Paul David)
– Myths of techno-fixes (Dan Sarewitz)
– Altered nature of human action (Hans Jonas)
– Organised irresponsibility (Ulrich Beck)
– Expectations and Imaginaries (Brown, Hedgecoe,
Jasanoff, Wynne et al.)
– Deficit models of publics (Brian Wynne)
– Society as a laboratory (Krohn and Weyer)

14. On responsibility
• From retrospective… (accountability and
liability)
• … to prospective (care and responsiveness)
• … and collective
• Role responsibilities and general
responsibilities
• Second-order (or meta-)responsibilities

15. On innovation
• Non-linear
• Socio-technical
• Systemic
Responsible innovation is ‘collective care for the
future through the stewardship of innovation in
the present’

16. Four characteristics of responsible
innovation
Reflexive Anticipatory
Responsive Inclusive

17. Making innovation responsible
Governance
experiments
• Life-cycle analysis
• Risk assessment
• Ethics committees
• Public dialogue
• Foresight
• Codes of conduct
• CTA/RTTA/midstream
modulation/STIR etc.
• … and more
De facto governance
• Multidisciplinary
collaboration
• Technology appraisal
• Training and capacity-building
• Institutional structures
• Reward and recognition
• Intellectual property
• Standards
• Publication
• Peer review
• Political economy of science
• … and more

19. Rationales for a European
framework/frameworks
• Sharing ‘best practice’
• Harmonising regulation
• A new narrative for science in society
• A new narrative for “Science in Society”
• Europe as powerful governance actor
– Grand challenges
– Horizon 2020
• Anchoring innovation to European values
• Moving from application to iteration

20. “The imaginary made real”

21. Stratospheric
Particle Injection
for Climate
Engineering
(SPICE)

22. Naturally produced
particles from large
volcanoes reduce
earths temperature by 0.5
C over 2 – 3 years
Four large balloons
supporting very strong
pipes carrying particle
material could cool the
planet by 2 C

24. Geoengineering AdaptationMitigation
Human actions that
change climate
Climate
System
Climate impact
on human welfare

32. A Stage gate

33. A Stage gate

34. Stage gate criteria
1. Safety
2. Compliance
3. Framing and Communication
(reflexive)
4. Imagination of applications and
implications (anticipatory, reflexive)
5. Hearing public and stakeholder views
(inclusive)

35. Naturally produced
particles from large
volcanoes reduce
earths temperature by 0.5
C over 2 – 3 years
Four large balloons
supporting very strong
pipes carrying particle
material could cool the
planet by 2 C

36. Naturally produced
particles from large
volcanoes reduce
earths temperature by 0.5
C over 2 – 3 years
Four large balloons
supporting very strong
pipes carrying particle
material could cool the
planet by 2 C

41. BYDANIEL CRESSEY
T
echnologiestokeepEarthcool could
onedayprovidearadical fixforclimate
change—and,inaworldstrugglingto
control itsgreenhouse-gasemissions,could
alsoprovehighlylucrativefor inventors.
But should individual researchers, or
companies,beallowed toown theintellectual
property(IP) behindtheseworld-changing
techniques?Theissuewasthrust into the
spotlight last weekafter acontroversial geo-
engineeringfield trial wascancelled amid
concernsaboutapatentapplicationbysomeof
thoseinvolvedintheproject,asfirst reported
byNature1
.
The£1.6-million(US$2.5-million)Strato-
sphericParticleInjectionfor ClimateEngi-
neering(SPICE)projectwasfundedbytheUK
government toinvestigatewhether spurting
reflectiveaerosolsintothestratospherecould
helptobouncesomeoftheSun‟swarmingrays
back intospace.Aspart of thisproject,SPICE
hadplannedtotestapossibledeliverysystem:
pumpingwaterupa1-kilometre-longhosetoa
balloon,whereitwouldbesprayedintothesky.
Theproject hadalreadysparkedprotests
fromenvironmentalistswaryofgeoengineer-
ing2
.But “apotentiallysignificant conflict of
interest” over apatent applicationfor SPICE‟s
technology,whichsometeammembersonly
recentlybecameawareof,wasadecisivefactor
potential conflictsof interest.Davidsonand
Hunt saythat theywereclear about their pat-
ent application beforeSPICEwasawarded
funding,andthereisnosuggestionthat they
actedinappropriately.But at least oneof the
fundingcouncilsisnowinvestigatingthe
circumstancessurroundingtheSPICEgrant,
andthepatent in question,saysWatson.
Huntblamesacultureclashfortheconfusion.
“It iscompletelynormal for engineeringpro-
jectstobeprotectedbyIP,” hesays.“Theissue
hereisthatinclimatesciencethereismistrustof
IP,andI understandthat now.” Hesayshedoes
not expect toearnanymoneyfromthepatent.
SPICE‟s climate modelling and other
technology development work will con-
tinue,but theincident isanother blowfor a
fieldalreadytroubled
by concerns over
governance.In2010,
researchersandpol-
icy-makersgathered
at theAsilomar Con-
ferenceCenter near Monterey,California,to
agreeaset of guidingprinciplesfor thefield
—an effort that largelyfailed3
.
Asmaller grouphadalreadyproducedthe
„OxfordPrinciples‟,statingthat geoengineer-
ingshouldbe“regulatedasapublicgood”.The
leadauthorsof thoseprincipleshavewarned
that patentingof geoengineeringtechnolo-
giescould“haveseriousnegativeimpacts”,by
patentinginprinciple—hehasappliedfor
patentson techniquesto removecarbon
dioxidedirectlyfrom theatmosphere.
ShobitaParthasarathy, apublic-policy
researcher at theUniversity of Michigan,
AnnArbor,saysthat thefieldurgentlyneeds
toagreeondetailedrulesfor IP.In2010,she
noteda“dramaticallyincreasing” number of
patent applicationsin thearea, containing
broadlanguagethat couldallowasmall num-
ber ofpatent holderstotakecontrol of ahuge
swatheof technologies4
.Onepossiblesolu-
tion,shesays,istodevelopauniquesystem
for handlinggeoengineeringpatents,akinto
thewaythat atomic-energypatentsarecon-
trolledintheUnitedStates.That systemputs
certain technologiesoff-limits,andallowsthe
government totakecontrol of someintellec-
tual property.“I don‟t thinkthesolutionisto
get ridof IP,” shesays.
Another optionmight betoallowpatent-
holderstoreceiveroyalties,but without the
optiontorestricttheuseofthepatent,saysTim
Kruger,aresearcher at theGeoengineering
Programme,Universityof Oxford,UK,who
helpedtodeveloptheOxfordPrinciples.This
wouldallowsomeresearchanddevelopment
toproceed,whilestill providingafinancial
incentivetowork in thearea,hesays.
But geoengineeringpatentsof any kind
couldgivecompaniesavestedinterest inthe
continuationof climatechange,arguesHolly
CLIMATECHANGE
Cancelled project spursdebate
over geoengineering patents
SPICEresearchconsortium decidesnot tofield- test itstechnology toreflect theSun’srays.
“ Theissuehere
isthat inclimate
sciencethereis
mistrust of IP.”
INFOCUS NEWS
Researcherscan’t regulate
climateengineeringalone
Political interests, not scientistsor inventors, will bethebiggest influenceon
technologiestocounter climatechange, saysJason Blackstock.
S
cientistsaredevelopinggeoengineeringtechnologies. But
whetherthesemethodseventuallysucceedincounteringclimate
change,andwhethertheywill beembracedbythewiderpopula-
tion,concernsmorethan scientistsalone.That iswhy,in thewakeof
geopolitical calculations.Wescientistsknowthis.Wehaveconsulted
withcivil society,theprivatesector andgovernment officialsthrough
the2010Asilomar Conferencein California—whichworkedon pol-
icyrecommendationsfor geoengineering—andtheongoingSolar
WORLDVIEWA personal takeon events

43. WHALESThelungefeedingof
greatest ocean predators
explained p.416
WORLDVIEWRio meeting
must not rush to set
planetary boundariesp.417
BRITTLESTARSBilateral
stepsof thefive- legged
groovemachinep.419
Acharter for geoengineering
A controversial field trial of technology tomitigateclimatechangehasbeen cancelled, but research
continues. A robust governanceframework issorely needed toprevent further setbacks.
governmentsto“whennecessary,createnewmechanismsfor the
governanceandoversightoflarge-scaleclimateengineeringresearch
activities”.
TheSPICEfiascostarklydemonstratestheneedfor suchmecha-
nisms.For aproject of suchhighprofiletofounder onproblemsof
intellectual property,regulationor public
protest wouldbebadenough. That it ran
intodifficultiesinall threeareasshowsan
underlyingproblem.
Of theissuesraised,intellectual property
mayturnout tobetheeasiest toresolve(see
page429).Sciencehasalongandgenerally
happyrelationshipwithpatents,including
thosefortechnologywiththeabilitytodriveworldwidechange.Like-
wise,lessonsonpublicengagement anddealingwithprotestscanbe
takenfromearlierrowsovergeneticmodification,stemcells,fertility
G
eoengineeringresearchhasaproblem.That muchshould
beclear followinglast week‟scancellationof afieldtrial for
theStratosphericParticleInjectionfor ClimateEngineering
(SPICE)project.Thesolutionstothisproblemarenotsoobvious,but
theymust befound—andfast.
TheSPICEfieldtrial wassupposedtoinvolvesprayingwater into
theatmosphereatanaltitudeof1kilometreusingaballoonandhose-
pipe,aspart of ahost of work exploringwhether it ispossibletomiti-
gateglobal warmingbyintroducingparticlesintothestratosphereto
reflect someof theSun‟senergyawayfrom Earth.
But thefieldtrial —whichisonlyasmall part of theoverall SPICE
project—becameboggeddowninprotestsanddelaysalmostassoon
asit wasannounced.Last week,asfirst reportedbyNature,thepro-
ject‟sleadinvestigatorannouncedthatitwasbeingabandoned,citing
concernsabout intellectual-propertyrights,publicengagement and
theoverall governanceregimefor such work.
“ Problemswill
persist until
geoengineers
graspthenettle
of regulation
andoversight.”
THISWEEK
EDITORIALS