Sergio Urueña López

In anticipatory governance and responsible innovation, anticipation is a key theoretical and practical dimension for promoting a more responsible governance of new and emerging sciences and technologies. Yet, anticipation has been subjected to a range of criticisms, such that many now see it as unnecessary for AG and RI. According to Alfred Nordmann, practices engaging with ‘the future’, when performed under certain conditions, may reify the future, diminish our ability to see what is happening, and/or reproduce the illusion of control over the future. Several authors have stressed that these critiques fail to capture the heterogeneous character of anticipatory practices, and yet research on the question of what particular kind of socio-epistemic engagements with ‘the future’ AG and RI aim to enact through anticipation remains fragmentary and their underlying rationale under-theorised. This article aims to advance the theoretical characterisation and problematisation of anticipation as key interventive tools for AG and RI. By distinguishing between four modes of anticipation and heuristically testing them against Nordmann’s critiques, the article argues that despite his assessment failing to recognise the heterogeneity of anticipatory practices considered valuable for AG and RI, it reinforces the relevance of performing certain modes of anticipatory exercises, namely critical-hermeneutic ones. Thus, anticipation continues to be a necessary heuristic dimension for AG and RI. More concretely, the article maintains that such anticipatory heuristics may find their radical constructive and critical-reflective character in the dynamics of inclusive scrutiny and negotiation about the plausibility and desirability of the envisioned or created futures.

[EN]The heuristic versatility of foresight is increasingly positioning this anticipatory instrument as a key resource to promote more responsible research and innovation practices. In a context where foresight's multiple heuristic potential is sometimes wrapped up in a promissory rhetoric that could lead to its being taken for granted, this article underlines the need to understand the emergence of these heuristics as being dependent on how foresight's dynamics unfold. By acknowledging the existence of more "open" or "closed" forms of foresight (which in turn can articulate more "open" or "closed" anticipations), the article argues that the degree of "openness/ closure" of foresight activities is constituted during the ex-ante, ex-dure and ex-post processes, and according to the relations underlying their constructive dynamics. The main conclusion reached is that a pre-condition for foresight practices to become "instruments for" responsible innovation is to make them "subjects of" responsibility simultaneously. This involves monitoring the socioepistemic relations whereby foresight practices are designed and executed, as well as monitoring how their emergent heuristics are translated into action.

The creation of future scenarios is considered a valuable methodological tool for shaping the anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Although plausibility is presented as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for assessing future scenarios, there is no consensus on its meaning or operationalization. The main objective of this paper is to contribute to clarifying the meaning of plausibility and the theoretical role it plays in the application of scenario building practices to technological governance. In particular, I will argue that plausibility can be understood as a methodological criterion and as an anticipatory-enabling ‘epistemic device.’ In this sense, I support the value of theoretically distinguishing between the methodological-limiting and the anticipatory-enabling roles of plausibility in foresight practices.

Anticipation has emerged over the past two decades as a fundamental tool for a wide variety of normative frameworks aimed at promoting a more socio-politically responsible governance of science, technology and innovation. However, theoretical considerations and reflections on the meaning and scope of anticipation have received far less attention than its invocation. The main objective of this article is to advance the theoretical-conceptual treatment of anticipation. On the one hand, it assumes that there is a connection between the ways of thinking about and using the future and the fields of science, technology and innovation that are considered the object of ethical-political problematisation. On the other hand, the article evaluates each of these forms of anticipatory articulation of responsibility on the basis of their respective ethico-political radicality.

Representations of science and technology, embodied as imaginaries, visions, and expectations, have become a growing focus of analysis. These representations are of interest to normative approaches to science and technology, such as Hermeneutic Technology Assessment and Responsible Innovation, because of their ability to modulate understandings of science and technology and to influence scientific and technological development. This article analyses the culture of participation underlying the NanoKOMIK project and the representations and meanings of (nano)science and (nano)technology communicated in the two nano-fiction comic books created as part of the project: _Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience_ (2016) and _NanoKOMIK #2_ (2017). The article argues that despite NanoKOMIK’s efforts to engage the public with (nano)science and (nano)technology, it reproduces non-binding modes of public participation and transmits socio-technical meanings that are instrumental in the social legitimisation of (nano)technology. More specifically, the analysis shows that NanoKOMIK’s comic books, in addition to not problematising the risks and conveying an eminently positive view of nanotechnology, also communicate certain ‘myth-conceptions’ of scientific activity and its products. For example, they convey an individualistic and linear vision of research and innovation and an instrumentalist and neutral (or ‘value-free’) view of technology. These findings highlight the importance of critically analysing the ‘cultures of participation’ that characterise and reproduce ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ projects and the representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology that they perpetuate.