来自内部的批评。这是一个温和的建议,旨在收回对负责任创新的批评

IF 3.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Anna Mann, Luca Chiapperino
{"title":"来自内部的批评。这是一个温和的建议,旨在收回对负责任创新的批评","authors":"Anna Mann, Luca Chiapperino","doi":"10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.","PeriodicalId":46727,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Responsible Innovation","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critiques from within. A modest proposal for reclaiming critique for responsible innovation\",\"authors\":\"Anna Mann, Luca Chiapperino\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Responsible Innovation\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Responsible Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Responsible Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

负责任创新(RI)中的批判如何产生?作为科学技术研究核心的科学、技术与社会之间非中性的关系,导致了不同批判流派的发展。没有一个符合我们来研究的生物医学实践的配置。在那里,生物医学专家向我们展示了通过他们领域的主流实践延续的权力关系的分析,并建立了社会-物质替代实践生物医学的常见形式。该论文建议将嵌入社会物质替代方案的专家所表达的批判性观察概念化为“来自内部的批评”,从而产生附带的好处和坏处。与其询问如何在国际扶轮中培养责任条件,论文建议通过阐明专家自己开发的已经存在的责任实践形式并分析它们产生的矛盾效应来温和地收回批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critiques from within. A modest proposal for reclaiming critique for responsible innovation
How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
20.50%
发文量
26
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Responsible Innovation (JRI) provides a forum for discussions of the normative assessment and governance of knowledge-based innovation. JRI offers humanists, social scientists, policy analysts and legal scholars, and natural scientists and engineers an opportunity to articulate, strengthen, and critique the relations among approaches to responsible innovation, thus giving further shape to a newly emerging community of research and practice. These approaches include ethics, technology assessment, governance, sustainability, socio-technical integration, and others. JRI intends responsible innovation to be inclusive of such terms as responsible development and sustainable development, and the journal invites comparisons and contrasts among such concepts. While issues of risk and environmental health and safety are relevant, JRI especially encourages attention to the assessment of the broader and more subtle human and social dimensions of innovation—including moral, cultural, political, and religious dimensions, social risk, and sustainability addressed in a systemic fashion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信