Michael Bernstein

Frameworks for ascertaining the societal dimensions of research and innovation (R&I), such as the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool (SRTT), have supported reflection on ethics and responsibility but often risk reducing reflexivity to procedural checklists or impact assessments. This paper develops an enhanced version, the reflexive SRTT 2.0 process, by incorporating concepts of epistemic reflexivity and ethnomethodological sensitivity. We introduce the concept of reflexive societal readiness, which understands readiness as a situated, ongoing accomplishment shaped by both local practices and institutional “relations of ruling.” Drawing on ethnomethodological observations, reflexive questionnaires, and an initial workshop in the Horizon Europe project AGRO4AGRI, we examined how researchers engaged with reflexivity in practice. Our findings reveal three recurring patterns: reflexivity was often deflected through reliance on methodological safeguards, outsourced to societal impact experts or stakeholders, and substituted with compliance to regulatory frameworks or dominant imaginaries of sustainability and competitiveness. These practices uphold internal project orders and limit the potential for interdisciplinary learning and critical engagement. To address these obstacles, SRTT 2.0 proposes a reflexive process combining (a) observation of situated practices, (b) reflexive questioning that foregrounds individual positionalities, and (c) workshops that foster collaborative and institutional learning. This design enables researchers to critically interrogate their assumptions, engage more meaningfully with inclusion, and question the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping their work. We argue that embedding such reflexive processes into project lifecycles can extend and strengthen Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks by cultivating collaborative, empathetic, and institutional learning. While challenges remain, SRTT 2.0 offers a transferable pathway for fostering more reflexive and responsible innovation practices.

Various approaches have emerged over the last several decades to meet the challenges and complexities of anticipating and responding to the potential impacts of emerging technologies. Although many of the existing approaches share similarities, they each have shortfalls. This paper takes as the object of its study Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies (ATE) to technology assessment, given that it was formatted to address many of the privations characterising parallel approaches. The ATE approach, also in practice, presents certain areas for retooling, such as how it characterises levels and objects of analysis. This paper results from the work done with the TechEthos Horizon 2020 project in evaluating the ethical, legal, and social impacts of climate engineering, digital extended reality, and neurotechnologies. To meet the challenges these technology families present, this paper aims to enhance the ATE framework to encompass the variety of human processes and material forms, functions, and applications that comprise the socio-technical systems in which these technologies are embedded

The European Commission’s pursuit of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) and its implementation in the European Research Area serve to investigate how ambitious policy goals can be conveyed into action. Challenging about implementing policy is the need to foster coherence in the interpretation of policy goals while coordinating their elaboration in practice. This chapter identifies the European Commission’s approach to implementing RRI as a case of New Public Management, and contrasts this with efforts at ‘bottom-up’ RRI implementation. Experiments with involving researchers and other stakeholders in designing and executing concrete RRI actions that fit their professional setting are understood as manifestations of a New Public Governance approach to implementing RRI policy. It is found that such deliberation of policy concepts and goals, and their concretization in a context-specific learning-by-doing approach practically enables the uptake of normative policy ambitions in networks of interdependent, non-hierarchically related actors across diverse substantive and administrative contexts.

Social exclusion influences how expressions are perceived and the tendency of the perceiver to mimic them. However, less is known about social exclusion’s effect on one’s own facial expressions. The aim of the present study was to identify the effects of social exclusion on Duchenne smiling behaviour, defined as activity of both zygomaticus major and the orbicularis oculi muscles. Utilising a within-subject’s design, participants took part in the Cyberball Task in which they were both included and excluded while facial electromyography was measured. We found that during the active experience of social exclusion, participants showed greater orbicularis oculi activation when compared to the social inclusion condition. Further, we found that across both conditions, participants showed greater zygomaticus major muscle activation the longer they engaged in the Cyberball Task. Order of condition also mattered, with those who experienced social exclusion before social inclusion showing the greatest overall muscle activation. These results are consistent with an affiliative function of smiling, particularly as social exclusion engaged activation of muscles associated with a Duchenne smile.

In this paper, we introduce the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool to aid researchers and innovators in developing research projects with greater responsiveness to societal values, needs, and expectations. The need for societally-focused approaches to research and innovation—complementary to Technology Readiness frameworks—is presented. Insights from responsible research and innovation concepts and practice, organized across critical stages of project-life cycles are discussed with reference to the development of the SR Thinking Tool. The tool is designed to complement not only shortfalls in TR approaches, but also improve upon other efforts to integrate RRI, sustainability, and design thinking in research and innovation cycles. Operationalization and early-stage user tests of the Tool are reported, along with discussion of potential future iterations and applications.

Historically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time. But there is persistent and growing concern about whether and how ethical and societal values are integrated into R&I policies and governance, as we confront public disbelief in science and political suspicion toward evidence-based policy-making. Erosion of such a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, automation and robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many policy efforts have emerged in response to such concerns, one prominent example being Europe's Eighth Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, whose focus on “Responsible Research and Innovation” provides a case study for the translation of such normative perspectives into concrete policy action and implementation. Our analysis of this H2020 RRI approach suggests a lack of consistent integration of elements such as ethics, open access, open innovation, and public engagement. On the basis of our evaluation, we suggest possible pathways for strengthening efforts to deliver R&I policies that deepen mutually beneficial science and society relationships.

Discourses around innovation often unreflexively assume positive progress and the inevitable contribution of new technologies to the betterment of society. Little attention is paid to issues of sustainability—including intergenerational equity, justice, and socio-ecological integrity—and the complex ways that societal arrangements and sociotechnical regimes are intermingled. Innovation governance for sustainability needs to actively engage both responsible research and innovation and sustainability paradigms in order for science and technology to effectively serve societal and sustainability goals. There is an opportunity to utilize tools of foresight to raise the capacity of actors in innovation processes to consider alternative framings of progress and challenge the status quo. This chapter explores participatory scenario construction as a means to productively disrupt status-quo imaginaries. The Future of Wastewater Sensing, a participatory scenario study, is presented as a case example to inform sustainability-oriented responsible research and innovation.

Helping scientists and engineers challenge received assumptions about how science, engineering, and society relate is a critical cornerstone for macroethics education. Scientific and engineering research are frequently framed as first steps of a value-free linear model that inexorably leads to societal benefit. Social studies of science and assessments of scientific and engineering research speak to the need for a more critical approach to the noble intentions underlying these assumptions. “Science Outside the Lab” is a program designed to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science and engineering policy. Assessment of the program entailed a pre-, post-, and 1 year follow up survey to gauge student perspectives on relationships between science and society, as well as a pre–post concept map exercise to elicit student conceptualizations of science policy. Students leave Science Outside the Lab with greater humility about the role of scientific expertise in science and engineering policy; greater skepticism toward linear notions of scientific advances benefiting society; a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the actors involved in shaping science policy; and a continued appreciation of the contributions of science and engineering to society. The study presents an efficacious program that helps scientists and engineers make inroads into macroethical debates, reframe the ways in which they think about values of science and engineering in society, and more thoughtfully engage with critical mediators of science and society relationships: policy makers and policy processes.

Contained in the face is a vast body of social information, both fixed and flexible. Across multiple lines of converging evidence it has become increasingly clear that face processing is subject to one of the most potent and best understood of social cognitive phenomena: social categorization. This article reviews this research at the juncture of social psychology and face perception showing the interplay between social categorization and face processing. It lays out evidence indicating that social categories are extracted easily from faces, suggesting that the effects of social categories can occur quickly and unintentionally. Recent evidence that social categories can affect perception of both invariant and variant facial characteristics is discussed. Finally, the article summarizes recent evidence indicating that the motivational consequences of social categories can affect which faces are remembered and how faces are processed.