• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Pieter Lemmens

  •  Home
  •  Publications
    36
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  News and Updates
    6

 More details
  • All publications (36)
  •  70
    In Memory of Bernard Stiegler (1 April 1952–5 August 2020)
    Foundations of Science 27 (3): 1021-1028. 2022.
    Science, Logic, and Mathematics
  •  118
    Book review: Susan Oyama (2000). Evolution's eye: A systems view of the biology-culture divide (review)
    Acta Biotheoretica 51 (1): 59-64. 2003.
    Evolutionary BiologyPhilosophy of Biology, General Works
  • Hoe greep te krijgen op het genoom?
    Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 1. 2007.
  •  84
    Cosmotechnics and the ontological turn in the age of the anthropocene
    Angelaki 25 (4): 3-8. 2020.
    Volume 25, Issue 4, August 2020, Page 3-8.
    Value Theory
  • Biofilosofen bezorgd om de toekomst van hun vak
    Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 3. 2004.
  •  4017
    The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons why it is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation
    with V. Blok
    In Bert-Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swierstra & Jeroen van den Hoven (eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications, Springer Verlag. pp. 19-35. 2015.
    In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of ‘responsible’ innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is…Read more
    In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of ‘responsible’ innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is highly problematic and that a more thorough inquiry of the concept is required. As a second step, we analyze the concept of innovation which is self-evidently presupposed in current literature on responsible innovation. It becomes clear that innovation is self-evidently seen as (1) technological innovation, (2) is primarily perceived from an economic perspective, (3) is inherently good and (4) presupposes a symmetry between moral agents and moral addressees. By challenging this narrow and uncritical concept of innovation, we contribute to a second round of theorizing about the concept and provide a research agenda for future research in order to enhance a less naïve concept of responsible innovation.
    Philosophy of Technology, MiscNanotechnology
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback