Enacting anticipatory heuristics: a tentative methodological proposal for steering responsible innovation

References

• Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2011. “Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31 (1): 17–27. doi:10.1177/0270467610391237.
   Google Scholar
• Arnaldi, S. 2018. “Retooling Techno-Moral Scenarios. A Revisited Technique for Exploring Alternative Regimes of Responsibility for Human Enhancement.” NanoEthics 12 (3): 283–300. doi:10.1007/s11569-018-0329-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. H. Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third Edition, edited by E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bechtold, U., L. Capari, and N. Gudowsky. 2017. “Futures of Ageing and Technology – Comparing Different Actors’ Prospective Views.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 157–176. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, W., and J. K. Olick. 1989. “An Epistemology for the Futures Field: Problems and Possibilities of Prediction.” Futures 21 (2): 115–135. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(89)90001-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boenink, M. 2013. “Anticipating the Future of Technology and Society by Way of (Plausible) Scenarios: Fruitful, Futile or Fraught with Danger?” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9 (2/3/4): 148–161. doi:10.1504/IJFIP.2013.058608.
   Google Scholar
• Bondy, P. 2010. “Argumentative Injustice.” Informal Logic 30 (3): 263–278. doi:10.22329/il.v30i3.3034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau, K. J., E. C. Guinan, K. R. Lakhani, and C. Riedl. 2016. “Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science.” Management Science 62 (10): 2765–2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, R., and J. Starkbaum. 2023. “Stakeholders in Research and Innovation: Towards Responsible Governance.” In Putting Responsible Research and Innovation into Practice: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach, edited by V. Blok, 229–247. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Collingridge, D. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. London: Francis Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• de Jouvenel, B. 1967. The Art of Conjecture. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, M., N. Weinberger, B.-J. Krings, and J. Hirsch. 2017. “Imagined Technology Futures in Demand-Oriented Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 177–196. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derbyshire, J. 2017. “The Siren Call of Probability: Dangers Associated with Using Probability for Consideration of the Future.” Futures 88: 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derbyshire, J., and G. Wright. 2017. “Augmenting the Intuitive Logics Scenario Planning Method for a More Comprehensive Analysis of Causation.” International Journal of Forecasting 33 (1): 254–266. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2016.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, C. M. W., and D. Stemerding. 2014. “Challenges for the European Governance of Synthetic Biology for Human Health.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (1): 6. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0006-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dupuy, J.-P., and A. Grinbaum. 2004. “Living with Uncertainty: Toward the Ongoing Normative Assessment of Nanotechnology.” Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 8 (2): 4–25. doi:10.5840/techne2004822.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013a. “Horizon 2020 — Responsible Research & Innovation.” Accessed April 2, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013b. Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, C(2013)8631 of 10 December 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Fenton-O’Creevy, M., and D. Tuckett. 2022. “Selecting Futures: The Role of Conviction, Narratives, Ambivalence, and Constructive Doubt.” Futures & Foresight Science 4 (3-4): e111. doi:10.1002/ffo2.111.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, N., and S. Dannenberg. 2021. “The Social Construction of Futures: Proposing Plausibility as a Semiotic Approach for Critical Futures Studies.” Futures 129: 102729. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. 2019. “Governing with Ambivalence: The Tentative Origins of Socio-Technical Integration.” Research Policy 48 (5): 1138–1149. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grin, J., and A. Grunwald. 2000. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, C. 2007. “Technological Futures and Non-Reciprocal Responsibility.” The International Journal of the Humanities: Annual Review 4 (2): 57–62. doi:10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v04i02/41814.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, C. 2013. “Horizons of Care: From Future Imaginaries to Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Shaping Emerging Technologies: Governance, Innovation, Discourse, edited by K. Konrad, C. Coenen, A. Dijkstra, C. Milburn, and H. van Lente, 185–202. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2009. “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by A. Meijers, 1103–1146. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2014. “Modes of Orientation Provided by Futures Studies: Making Sense of Diversity and Divergence.” European Journal of Futures Research 2 (1): 30. doi:10.1007/s40309-013-0030-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2019. “The Inherently Democratic Nature of Technology Assessment.” Science and Public Policy 46 (5): 702–709. doi:10.1093/scipol/scz023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2020. “The Objects of Technology Assessment. Hermeneutic Extension of Consequentialist Reasoning.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 96–112. doi:10.1080/23299460.2019.1647086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudowsky, N., and M. Sotoudeh. 2017. “Into Blue Skies—A Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-Creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering.” NanoEthics 11 (1): 93–106. doi:10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2013. ““Daddy, Can I Have a Puddle Gator?”: Creativity, Anticipation, and Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 109–118. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1-2): 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., T. E. Jensen, and K. E. Jones. 2013. “The Good, the Bad and the Perfect: Criticizing Engagement Practice.” Social Studies of Science 43 (1): 118–135. doi:10.1177/0306312712462461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2020. “Imagined Worlds: The Politics of Future-Making in the Twenty-First Century.” In The Politics and Science of Prevision: Governing and Probing the Future, edited by A. Wenger, U. Jasper, and M. Dunn Cavelty, 27–44. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas, H. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karinen, R., and D. H. Guston. 2009. “Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology.” In Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, edited by M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 217–232. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kera, D. R. 2020. “Anticipatory Policy as a Design Challenge: Experiments with Stakeholders Engagement in Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies (BDLTs).” In Blockchain and Applications. BLOCKCHAIN 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, edited by J. Prieto, A. K. Das, S. Ferretti, A. Pinto, and J. M. Corchado, 87–92. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S., P. Stegmaier, and K. Konrad. 2019. “The Tentative Governance of Emerging Science and Technology—A Conceptual Introduction.” Research Policy 48 (5): 1091–1097. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehoux, P., F. A. Miller, and B. Williams-Jones. 2020. “Anticipatory Governance and Moral Imagination: Methodological Insights from a Scenario-Based Public Deliberation Study.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 119800. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucivero, F. 2016. “Scenarios as “Grounded Explorations”. Designing Tools for Discussing the Desirability of Emerging Technologies.” In Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies: Appraising the Moral Plausibility of Technological Visions, 155–190. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2021. “Towards an Anticipatory Public Engagement Methodology: Deliberative Experiments in the Assembly of Possible Worlds Using Focus Groups.” Qualitative Research 21 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1177/1468794120919096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, C. 2015. “Strategies for Sustainable Policy Design: Constructive Assessment of Biodiversity Offsets and Banking.” Ecosystem Services 16: 266–274. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, R., and R. Sandford. 2019. “Futures Literacy: The Capacity to Diversify Conscious Human Anticipation.” In Handbook of Anticipation: Theoretical and Applied Aspects of the Use of Future in Decision Making, edited by R. Poli, 73–91. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mody, C. C. M. 2004. “Small, but Determined: Technological Determinism in Nanoscience.” HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10 (2): 99–128.
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, A. 2007. “If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics.” NanoEthics 1 (1): 31–46. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6.
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, A. 2014. “Responsible Innovation, the Art and Craft of Anticipation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 87–98. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882064.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., and M. Pansera. 2019. “Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Handbook on Science and Public Policy, edited by D. Simon, S. Kuhlmann, J. Stamm, and W. Canzler, 26–48. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. H. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Popa, E. O., and V. Blok. 2022. “Conspiracism as a Litmus Test for Responsible Innovation.” In Values for a Post-Pandemic Future, edited by M. J. Dennis, G. Ishmaev, S. Umbrello, and J. van den Hoven, 111–128. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, R. 2008. “Foresight Methodology.” In The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice, edited by L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, and R. Popper, 44–88. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Ramírez, R., and C. Selin. 2014. “Plausibility and Probability in Scenario Planning.” Foresight 16 (1): 54–74. doi:10.1108/FS-08-2012-0061.
   Google Scholar
• Repo, P., and K. Matschoss. 2019. “Considering Expert Takeovers in Citizen Involvement Processes.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (2): 119–142. doi:10.1080/23299460.2019.1568145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A. 2016. “The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and Around Brussels.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 290–304. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A., T. J. Misa, and J. Schot. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Edited by T.J. Misa and J. Schot. London: Pinter Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and D. K. R. Robinson. 2013. “Constructive Technology Assessment and the Methodology of Insertion.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, and M. E. Gorman, 37–53. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and H. te Kulve. 2008. “Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios.” In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, edited by E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. M. Wetmore, 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, D. K. R. 2009. “Co-Evolutionary Scenarios: An Application to Prospecting Futures of the Responsible Development of Nanotechnology.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (9): 1222–1239. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski, J., and D. H. Guston. 2016. “‘You Caught Me off Guard’: Probing the Futures of Complex Engineered Nanomaterials.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 18 (7): 208. doi:10.1007/s11051-016-3485-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sardar, Z. 2010. “The Namesake: Futures; Futures Studies; Futurology; Futuristic; Foresight—What’s in a Name?” Futures 42 (3): 177–184. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D. R., R. A. Pielke, and R. Byerly. 2000. Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, C., M. Roßmann, A. Lösch, and A. Grunwald. 2021. “Transformative Vision Assessment and 3-D Printing Futures: A New Approach of Technology Assessment to Address Grand Societal Challenges.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–10. doi:10.1109/TEM.2021.3129834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz-Plaschg, C. 2018a. “Nanotechnology is Like … The Rhetorical Roles of Analogies in Public Engagement.” Public Understanding of Science 27 (2): 153–167. doi:10.1177/0963662516655686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz-Plaschg, C. 2018b. “The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologies.” NanoEthics 12 (2): 139–153. doi:10.1007/s11569-018-0315-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selin, C. 2006. “Time Matters: Temporal Harmony and Dissonance in Nanotechnology Networks.” Time & Society 15 (1): 121–139. doi:10.1177/0961463X06061786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selin, C. 2011. “Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 723–737. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selin, C. 2014. “On not Forgetting Futures.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 103–108. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.884378.
   Google Scholar
• Selin, C., and Â. Guimaraes Pereira. 2013. “Pursuing Plausibility.” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9 (2/3/4): 93–109. doi:10.1504/IJFIP.2013.058616.
   Google Scholar
• Sotoudeh, M., and N. Gudowsky. 2018. “Participatory Foresight for Technology Assessment. Towards an Evaluation Approach for Knowledge Co-Creation.” TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 27 (2): 53–59. doi:10.14512/tatup.27.2.53.
   Google Scholar
• Stemerding, D., W. Betten, V. Rerimassie, Z. Robaey, and F. Kupper. 2019. “Future Making and Responsible Governance of Innovation in Synthetic Biology.” Futures 109: 213–226. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.11.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., D. Stemerding, and M. Boenink. 2009. “Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case of the ObesityPill.” In Evaluating New Technologies: Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Developments, edited by P. Sollie, and M. Düwell, 119–138. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., and H. te Molder. 2012. “Risk and Soft Impacts.” In Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, edited by S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, and M. Peterson, 1049–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Urueña, S. 2019. “Understanding “Plausibility”: A Relational Approach to the Anticipatory Heuristics of Future Scenarios.” Futures 111: 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2019.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urueña, S. 2021. “Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies.” NanoEthics 15 (3): 271–302. doi:10.1007/s11569-021-00408-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urueña, S. 2022. “Anticipation and Modal Power: Opening up and Closing Down the Momentum of Sociotechnical Systems.” Social Studies of Science 52 (5): 783–805. doi:10.1177/03063127221111469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urueña, S., H. Rodríguez, and A. Ibarra. 2021. “Foresight and Responsible Innovation: Openness and Closure in Anticipatory Heuristics.” Futures 134: 102852. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Burg, S. 2009a. “Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography.” Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1): 97–110. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9079-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Burg, S. 2009b. “Taking the “Soft Impacts” of Technology into Account: Broadening the Discourse in Research Practice.” Social Epistemology 23 (3-4): 301–316. doi:10.1080/02691720903364191.
   Google Scholar
• van der Burg, S. 2014. “On the Hermeneutic Need for Future Anticipation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 99–102. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882556.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2012. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by M. Dusseldorp, and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2014. “The Quest for the ‘Right’ Impacts of Science and Technology: A Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues, edited by J. van den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops, and H. Romijn, 33–50. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Warnke, P., and G. Heimeriks. 2008. “Technology Foresight as Innovation Policy Instrument: Learning from Science and Technology Studies.” In Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy, edited by C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, and R. Barré, 71–87. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Withycombe Keeler, L., M. J. Bernstein, and C. Selin. 2019. “Intervening through Futures for Sustainable Presents: Scenarios, Sustainability, and Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Socio-Technical Futures Shaping the Present. Empirical Examples and Analytical Challenges, edited by A. Lösch, A. Grunwald, M. Meister, and I. Schulz-Schaeffer, 255–282. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmer-Merkle, S., and T. Fleischer. 2017. “Eclectic, Random, Intuitive? Technology Assessment, RRI, and Their Use of History.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 217–233. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1338105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar