Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) based innovations, e.g. in the field of Life Sciences or Nanotechnology, frequently raise societal and political concerns. To address these concerns NEST researchers are expected to deploy socially responsible R&D practices. This requires researchers to integrate social and ethical aspects (SEAs) in their daily work. Many methods can facilitate such integration. Still, why and how researchers should and could use SEAs remains largely unclear. In this paper we aim to relate motivations for NEST researchers to include SEAs in their work, and the requirements to establish such integration from their perspectives, to existing approaches that can be used to establish integration of SEAs in the daily work of these NEST researchers. Based on our analyses, we argue that for the successful integration of SEAs in R&D practice, collaborative approaches between researchers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities seem the most successful. The only way to explore whether that is in fact the case, is by embarking on collaborative research endeavours.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the remainder of this article, we will refer to these scholars from the social sciences and humanities (sociologists, philosophers, ethnographers, humanists, science and technology studies practitioners, engineering ethicists, etc.) as ‘social scientists.’

  2. In this article, we consider R&D practices to be phase the innovation processes where researchers work on the scientific and technological aspects of the innovations. In that sense, innovations are considered the outcome of R&D practices. We realise that innovation processes also contain other phases (e.g. authorisation, marketing, sales, maintenance), but to remain within the aim and scope of this article we focus on the integration of SEAs in R&D.

  3. The R&D process may contain three distinguishable phases, which have been illustrated by Schuurbiers and Fisher (2009). In the downstream phase of R&D, the central question is how to adopt and deploy R&D outcomes. In the upstream phase, it is asked what R&D to fund and carry out. In the midstream (mid-level), the main question is how to shape and implement R&D.

  4. We review various motivations covered in literature. We cannot claim to be 100 % complete in our review, yet we can indicate most important trends and suggestions in literature.

  5. Our distinction of different motivations shows parallels to earlier analyses, distinguishing between substantive, normative and instrumental rationales for public engagement activities (see e.g. Stirling 2008). Yet, here we approach these motivations from the perspective of researchers.

  6. These normative reasons may be of limited value to industrial R&D. Corporate R&D is not funded by public money. Still, there are reasons for industrial researchers to take into account SEAs. A broader set of SEAs in R&D could help increase corporate social responsibility (Wilsdon & Willis 2004). Notwithstanding, some may argue that companies only exert social responsibility for its (in)direct effect on turnover and profit (cf. Marshall and Toffel 2005), or as a form of risk management. Possibly, reasons for such integration are neither purely idealistic, nor purely economic, but a balance between the two (Penders et al. 2009a).

  7. This may be considered especially important in socially and politically problematic R&D areas, such as the life sciences, with concerns of e.g. genetically modified organisms, synthetic biology and stem cell technology. Failure to attend to these concerns early may turn out to be costly (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon 2007), both in monetary and public appreciation related terms.

  8. Still, the laboratories where R&D work is largely carried out, are un(der)examined as places for increased reflexivity on SEAs (Conley 2011), both in universities (Patra 2011) and industry (Davies and Wolf-Phillips 2006; Van Merkerk and Smits 2008; Stegmaier 2009).

  9. These can range from micro-level decisions on e.g. technical, social and economic aspects (e.g., which temperature to set for optimal research outcomes, which technician to ask to perform experiments, and choosing between a more and less expensive analysis kit) to macro-level decisions (e.g., which type of production plant to build to make the most sustainable product, which organisations to cooperate with to reach the most favourable outcomes, and which machinery and raw materials to buy from which supplier). In all such decisions, researchers are likely to be involved to a certain extent.

References

  • 21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act. (2003). Public Law 108–153.

  • Barling, A., De Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlett, J., et al. (1999). The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 7, 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith, J., & Huang, F. (2005). Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science. Nature Biotechnology, 23(12), 1479–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(1–2), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability & citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 295–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calleja-Lopez, A. & Fisher, E. (2009). Dialogues from the lab: Contemporary maieutics for socio-technical inquiry. Proceedings of society for philosophy & technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

  • Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. S. (2007). The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment. Rethinking how we assess and mitigate environmental threats. Organization Environment, 20(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2006). Engaging research councils? An evaluation of a Nanodialogues experiment in upstream public engagement. University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.bbsrc.com/web/FILES/Workshops/nanodialogues_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies—studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, S. N. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K. G., & Wolf-Phillips, J. (2006). Scientific citizenship and good governance: Implications for biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology, 24(2), 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (2006). Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 717–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, N. (2009). Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: Three perspectives. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(3), 180–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, N., & Fahlquist, J. N. (2010). Responsibility in engineering: Toward a new role for engineering ethicists. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 30(3), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doubleday, R. (2004). Political innovation. Corporate engagements in controversy over genetically modified foods (thesis). London: University College London.

  • Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science & Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. (2004). Going public. Nature, 431, 883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. (2009). Mind the gap. Nature, 462, 825–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Energy research in the 7th framework programme. pp. 1–30. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/energy_research_fp7_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • European Commission. (2011a). Horizon 2020— The framework programme for research and innovation. communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. pp. 1–14.

  • European Commission. (2011b). Analysis Part I: investment and performance in R&D—Investing in the future. Innovation union competitiveness report 2011, pp. 41–154. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nano medicine—Opinion No. 21. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research. Ogmius, 14, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE), Chicago, Illinois, pp. 1–7.

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., & Miller, C. (2009). Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369–381). Palo Alto: Academica Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flipse, S.M., Van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Osseweijer, P. (2012). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘Part of the Job’ of researchers in industry. Science & Engineering Ethics. Online 25 Oct 2012, pp. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortuin, F. T. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2007). The dynamics of the strategic network relations between corporate R&D and business: A longitudinal analysis in a large, technology-based multinational company. Journal on Chain & Network Science, 7(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2009). The sociology of intellectual life. The career of the mind in and around academy. Coventry: University of Warwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., et al. (2011). The 2010 Eurobaro meter on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 29(2), 113–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. E., Werhane, P. H., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 3(3), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., & Van der Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 72–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groffman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., et al. (2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 284–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science & Public Policy, 36(5), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. G. (2007). Ethics and technology ‘in the Making’: An essay on the challenge of nano ethics. Nanoethics, 1(1), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, M. (2012). Commentary: Looking for conflict and finding none? Public Understanding of Science, 21, 188–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivisto, R., Wessberg, N., Eerola, A., Ahlqvist, T., & Sirkku, K. (2009). Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1163–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 186–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 5(2), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macilwain, C. (2009). Genetics: Watching science at work. Nature, 462, 840–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C., Joly, P. B., & Rip, A. (2008). Interactive technology assessment in the real world. Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Policy Analysis, 39(3), 673–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938/1973). Science and the social order. In Storer, N.W. (Ed.) The sociology of science—Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 267–278.

  • Mitcham, C. (1994). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. C. Shrader-Frechette (Ed.), Research ethics (pp. 153–168). Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordman, A. (2007). If and Then: A critique of speculative nano ethics. Nanoethics, 1, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordman, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 273–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science & Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Schott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2′ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osseweijer, P. (2006). A short history of talking biotech: Fifteen years of iterative action research in institutionalising scientists’ engagement in public communication (thesis). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

  • Overdevest, C., Huyck Orr, C., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11, 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patra, D. (2011). Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. Nanoethics, 5(2), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. pp. 1–22.

  • Penders, B. (2008). From seeking healths to finding healths (thesis). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

  • Penders, B., Verbakel, J. M. A., & Nelis, A. (2009a). The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 29(6), 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penders, B., Vos, R., & Horstman, K. (2009b). Sensitization: Reciprocity and reflection in scientific practice. EMBO Reports, 10, 205–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radstake, M., Van den Heuvel-Vromans, E., Jeucken, N., Dortmans, K., & Nelis, A. (2009). Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. EMBO Reports, 10, 313–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randles, S. (2008). From nano-ethicswash to real-time regulation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12, 270–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36(3), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1981). Maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkeheid van chemici (thesis). Nootdorp: Drukkerij P.Th. v.d. Sande.

  • Rip, A. (2009). Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports, 10, 666–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, A., Boon, W. P. C., Kloet, R. R., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2011). Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what? Research Policy, 40(3), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Moving engagement upstream? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. W., Vanclay, F. M., & Aslin, H. J. (2010). Technology assessment in social context: The case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 28(2), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2/3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (2008). Who are the scientists of today? Seed magazine 19. Available at http://seedmagazine.com/stateofscience/sos_feature_shapin_p1.html. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • Shatkin, J. A. (2008). Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 278–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley Egan, C. (2010). The ambivalence of promising technology. Humanities, Social Sciences & Law, 4(2), 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., & Rip, A. (2000). Users and unicorns: A discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science & Public Policy, 27(3), 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIRC (Social Issues Research Council) in partnership with the royal society and the royal institution of Great Britain. (2001). Guidelines on science and health communication. Available at http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.

  • Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports, 10, 114–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in techno scientific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photo acoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, S. (2010). Taking the soft impacts of technology into account: Broadening the discourse in research practice. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merkerk, R. O., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2008). Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(3), 312–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing Morality—Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (1981). The responsibilities of scientists. Minerva, 19(4), 582–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & Beecroft R. (Eds.) Technickfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. pp. 39–62.

  • Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groffman, P. M., Schneider, L., et al. (2010). The engaged university: Providing a platform for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 314–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22–29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, L. (2007). Is cell science dangerous? Journal on Medical Ethics, 33(6), 345–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282(5395), 1813–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is the result of a research project of the CSG Centre for Society and Life Sciences carried out within the research programme of the Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation in The Netherlands at the Delft University of Technology, Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology & Society (BTS), funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We thank Dr. Ibo van de Poel for his critical review of an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology and Society, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 67, 2628 BC, Delft, The Netherlands

    Steven M. Flipse & Patricia Osseweijer

  2. CSG Centre for Society and the Life Sciences, PO Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Steven M. Flipse & Patricia Osseweijer

  3. Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, PO Box 5057, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Steven M. Flipse & Patricia Osseweijer

  4. Faculty of Applied Sciences, Science Education and Communication, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands

    Maarten C. A. van der Sanden

  5. BE-Basic, Julianalaan 67, 2628 BC, Delft, The Netherlands

    Patricia Osseweijer

Authors
  1. Steven M. Flipse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maarten C. A. van der Sanden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Osseweijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven M. Flipse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flipse, S.M., van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Osseweijer, P. The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 703–725 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9423-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9423-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation