Rafał R. Wodzisz

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the academic discussion on the proper understanding of the notions of responsibility and innovation. In recent years, the field of Responsible Research and Innovation has grown rapidly among academia and received considerable attention. One area of focus concerns the proper understanding of the notion of the terms themselves. They are especially problematic in light of the critique that the subject has already received (cf. Blok, Lemmens 2015). This article provides an answer to that critique and proposes an alternative approach to the notions discussed. On the one hand, it outlines the so called ambivalued notion of innovation (cf. Kawalec 2015) and on the other, it presents a four-point characteristic of responsibility relevant to the field of research and innovation. In the text, the term responsibility should be understood as collective, future-oriented, socio-political, and values-oriented.

Safety and care for the natural environment are two of the most important values that drive scientific enterprise in twentieth century. Researchers and innovators often develop new technologies aimed at pollution reduction, and therefore satisfy the strive for fulfilment of these values. This work is often incentivized by policy makers. According to EU directive 2006/40/EC on mobile air conditioning since 2013 all newly approved vehicles have to be filled with refrigerant with low global warming potential. Extensive and expensive research financed by leading car manufacturers led to invention of R-1234yf refrigerant with GWP < 1, which was huge improvement. For the proper understanding of this case it will be useful to refer it to the idea of responsible innovation, which is now being developed and quickly attracts attention. I proceed in the following order. Firstly, I present the relevant properties of R-1234yf and discuss the controversy associated with its marketing. Secondly, I examine framework for responsible innovation. In greater detail I discuss the notions of care for future generations and collective responsibility. Thirdly, I apply the offered framework to the case study at hand. Finally, I draw some conclusions which go in two directions: one is to make some suggestions for improving the framework of RI, and the second is to identify missed opportunities for developing truly responsible refrigerant.

In our paper we investigate a difficulty arising when one tries to reconsiliateessentialis t’s thinking with classification practice in the biological sciences. The article outlinessome varieties of essentialism with particular attention to the version defended by Brian Ellis. Weunderline the basic difference: Ellis thinks that essentialism is not a viable position in biology dueto its incompatibility with biological typology and other essentialists think that these two elementscan be reconciled. However, both parties have in common metaphysical starting point and theylack explicit track of methodological procedures. Methodological inquiry involves less demandingassumptions than metaphysical, and therefore it is justified to analyse abovementioned discrepancy between Ellis and other essentialist in this context. We do it by bottom-up investigation whichfocuses on the practice of taxonomists in the particular field of biology. A case study helps us todiscover four characteristics of biological typology practice: impossibility of algorithmization,relativity, subjectivity and conventionality. These features prove non-realistic and therefore anti-essentialistic character of biological classification. We conclude by saying that any essentialismrelated to the notion of biological kind cannot be regarded as justified by scientific enterprise of creating typologies.