While technological innovation is a core element of efforts to increase public welfare, innovators are rarely trained to take the societal dimensions of innovation into account in a systematic manner. Responsible innovation has emerged within policy discourses worldwide to address this challenge. Implementing responsible innovation in daily practices, however, requires addressing both the multidisciplinary and the culturally situated nature of innovation processes. Effectiveness of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) has been tested, but primarily only in developed countries, raising questions about how well it works in innovation and cultural settings differing from Western cultures. Therefore, this study analyzes the possibities of institutionalizing responsible innovation in an Eastern European country, namely in Hungary. For this investigation, we conducted STIR-pilots in two Hungarian natural science research groups. The findings show that though the original STIR method can be adapted to support responsible innovation practices in Hungary, the differences in the innovation environment and culture (such as grant-driven innovation; lack of trust; less knowledge on responsible innovation; lack of law on the societical impacts of research and innovaton) require methodological modifications in order to improve STIR’s effectiveness.
Aerni, P. (2005): Stakeholder Attitudes Towards the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops in South Africa. Environmental Science & Policy 8(5): 464–476.
Apak, S. – Atay, E. (2015): Global Competitiveness in the EU through Green Innovation Technologies and Knowledge Production. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 181: 207–217.
Barben, D. – Fisher, E. – Selin, C. – Guston, D. H. (2008): Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In: Hackett, E. J. – Amsterdamska, O. – Lynch, M. E. – Wajcman, J. (wds.): New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Boston: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.
Bennet, I. – Sarewitz, D. (2006): Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture 15(4): 309–326.
Bien, H.-J – Ben, T.-M. – Wang, K.-F. (2014): Trust Relationships within R&D Networks: A Case Study from the Biotechnological Industry. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 16(3): 354–373.
Buzás, N. – Lukovics, M. (2015): A felelosségteljes innovációról [Responsible Innovation]. Közgazdasági Szemle 62(4): 438–456.
Buzás, N. – Lukovics, M. (2016): Southern European Perspectives. In: von Schomberg, R. (ed.): Handbook of Responsible Innovation – a Global Resource. Edgar Elgar Publishing.
Chorus, C. – van Wee, B. – Zwart, S. (2012): TPM Catalogue. Concepts, Theories, Methods. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Ciocanel, A. B. – Pavelescu, F. M. (2015): Innovation and Competitiveness in European Context. Procedia Economics and Finance 32: 728–737.
Dosi, G. – Grazzi, M. – Moschella, M. (2015): Technology and Costs in International Competitiveness: From Countries and Sectors to Firms. Research Policy 44(10): 1795–1814.
EC (2016): European Innovation Scoreboard. Brussels: European Commission.
Edquist, C. (2005): Systems of Innovation Approaches. Their Emergence and Characteristics. In: Edquist, C. (ed): Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London – New York: Routledge, pp. 1–35.
Eurobarometer (2011): Consumer Understanding of Labels and the Safe use of Chemicals. Report, Special Eurobarometer 360.
Eurobarometer (2013): Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology. Report, Special Eurobarometer 401.
Farkas, B. (2011): The Central and Eastern European Model of Capitalism. Post-Communist Economies 23(1): 15–34.
Farkas, B. (2016): Models of Capitalism in the European Union: Post-crisis Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fisher, E. (2007): Integrating Science and Society in the Laboratory. Presentation. Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, NM.
Fisher, E. – Mahajan, R. L. – Mitcham, C. (2006): Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26(6): 485–496.
Fisher, E. – Maricle, G. (2014): Higher-level Responsiveness? Socio-technical Integration within US and UK Nanotechnology Research Priority Setting. Science and Public Policy, 28 April 2014, 1–14.
Fisher, E. – Schuurbiers, D. (2013): Midstream Modulation. In: Doorn, N. – Schuurbiers, D. – van de Poel, I. – Gorman, M. E. (eds): Opening up the Laboratory: Approaches for Early Engagement with New Technology, Wiley-Blackwell, 97–110.
Fisher, E. – Slade, C. – Anderson, D. – Bozeman, B. (2010): The Public Value of Nanotechnology? Scientometrics 85(1): 29–39.
Fisher, E. – O’Rourke, M. – Kennedy, E. B. – Evans, R. – Gorman, M. – Seager, T.† (2015): Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61.
Flipse, S. M. – van der Sanden, M. C. A. – Osseweijer, P. (2013): Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining what is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry. Science and Engineering Ethics 19(3): 1141–1164.
Flipse, S. M. – van der Sanden, M. C. A. – Osseweijer, P. (2014): Improving Industrial R&D Practices with Social and Ethical Aspects: Aligning Key Performance Indicators with Social and Ethical Aspects in Food Technology R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85(6): 185–197.
Flipse, S. M. – Vrielink, J. O. – van der Sanden, M. C. (2015): Building Interactive Communication Tools to Support Interdisciplinary Responsible Innovation. Journal of Innovation Management 3(4): 119-133.
Guston, D. H. (2014): Understanding Anticipatory Governance. Social Studies of Science 44(2): 219–243.
Guston, D. H. – Sarewitz, D. (2002): Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24(1-2): 93–109.
Havas, A. – Nyíri, L. (eds.) (2007): A magyar nemzeti innovációs rendszer [The Hungarian Innovation System]. Háttértanulmány az OECD 2007/2008. évi innovációs országjelentése számára. Budapest: NKTH.
Inzelt, A. – Csonka, L. (2014): Responsible Science in Societies. In: Buzás, N. – Lukovics, M. (eds.): Responsible innovation. Szeged: JATEPress, 57–72.
Lengyel, B. – Leydessdorff, L. (2011): Regional Innovation Systems in Hungary: The Failing Synergy at the National Level. Regional Studies 45(5): 677–693.
Lengyel, I. (2009): Knowledge-based Local Economic Development for Enhancing Competitiveness in Lagging Areas of Europe: The Case of the University of Szeged. In: Varga, A. (ed): Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Development: Geography, Entrepreneurship and Policy. Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 322–349.
Lopez, R. – Carrau, J. G. (2002): The GMO Regulation in the EU and the Commercial Conflict with the United States. Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain.
Lukovics, M. – Buzás, N. – Huntingford, J. – Chiocca, M. – Bubbolini, G. – Udvari, B. (2016a): Facilitating Responsible Innovation in the South-East European Countries. Journal of Responsible Innovation (under review)
Lukovics, M. – Buzás, N. – Huntingford, J. – Molnár, G. (2016b): Felelosségteljes innováció a Délkelet-európai országokban [Responsible Innovation in Southeast European Countries]. In Lengyel, I. – Nagy, B. (eds): Térségek versenyképessége, intelligens szakosodása és újraiparosodása. Szeged: JATEPress, 62–78.
Macnaghten, P. – Owen, R. – Stilgoe, J. – Wynne, B. – Azevedo, A. – de Campos, A. – Chilvers, J. – Dagnino, R. – di Giulio, G. – Frow, E. – Garvey, B. – Groves, C. – Hartley, S. – Knobel, M. – Kobayashi, E. – Lehtonen, M. – Lezaun, J. – Mello, L. – Monteiro, M. – Pamplona da Costa, J. – Rigolin, C. – Rondani, B. – Staykova, M. – Taddei, R. – Till, C. – Tyfield, D. – Wilford, S. – Velho, L. (2014): Responsible Innovation across Borders: Tensions, Paradoxes and Possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(2): 191–199.
Martus, B. (2015): Növekedjünk vagy foglalkoztassunk? Az amerikai gazdasági növekedés problémája [Growth or Employment? The Problem of American Economic Growth]. Pénzügyi Szemle 60(2): 254–274.
Nielsen, C. P. – Thierfelder, K. – Robinson, S. (2003): Consumer Preferences and Trade in Genetically Modified Foods. Journal of Policy Modeling 25(8): 777–794.
OECD (2011): Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Owen, R. – Baxter, D. – Maynard, T. – Depledge, M. (2009): Beyond Regulation: Risk Pricing and Responsible Innovation. Environmental Science & Technology 43(18): 6902–6906.
Owen, R. – Macnaghten, P. – Stilgoe, J. (2012): Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760.
Panzda, K. – Ellwood, E. (2013): Strategic and Ethical Foundations for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(5): 1112–1125.
Ravesteijn, W. – Liu, Y. – Yan, P. (2015): Responsible Innovation in Port Development: The Rotterdam Maasvlakte 2 and the Dalian Dayao Bay Extension Projects. Water Science & Technology 72(5): 665–677.
Rip, A. (2005): Technology Assessment as Part of the Co-Evolution of Nanotechnology and Society : the Thrust of the TA Programme in NanoNed. Paper presented to the Conference on Nanotechnology in Science, Economy and Society, Marburg, Germany.
Rodríguez, H. – Fisher, E. – Schuurbiers, D. (2013): Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-level Solicitations. Research Policy 42(5): 1126–1137.
Schomberg, R. von (2012): Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation. In: Dusseldorp, M. – Beecroft, R. (eds.): Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Wiesbaden: Springer Vs Verlag Fur Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 39–61.
Schuurbiers, D. (2011): What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788.
Schuurbiers, D. – Fisher, E. (2009): Lab-scale Intervention. EMBO Reports. Science & Society Series on Convergence Research 10(5): 424–427.
Setiawan, A. D. – Singh, R. (2015): Responsible Innovation in Practice: The Adaption of Solar PV Telecom Towers in Indonesia. In: Koops, B.-J. – Oosterlaken, I. – Romijn, H. – Swierstra, T. – van den Hoven, J. (eds.): Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 225–244.
Stilgoe, J. – Owen, R. – Macnaghten, P. (2013): Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.
Sutcliffe, H. (2013): A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation. London: Matter.
Taebi, B. – Correljé, A. – Cuppen, E. – Dignum, M. – Pesch, a U. (2014): Responsible Innovation as an Endorsement of Public Values: The Need for Interdisciplinary Research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1): 118–124.
Tihon, A. – Ingham, M. (2011): The Societal System and Responsible Innovations: Freeing Sustainable Development from a Deadlock. Journal of Innovation Economics 2(8): 11–31.
Várady, J. – Tóth, M. – Fogarasi, J. (2005): Merre tovább? A Magyar vegyipar jövoképe. A Magyar vegyipart érinto szakképzés, felnottképzés fejlesztésének problémái, lehetoségei [The Future Image of the Hungarian Chemical Industry]. Available: http://www.vdsz.hu/files/45/22/vegyip_szakkepzes.pdf, accessed 4 December 2016)
Vigani, M. – Raimondi, V. – Olper, A. (2010): GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards. Paper provided by LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven in its series LICOS Discussion Papers.
Vilmányi, M. (2011): The Relationship Performance in the Field of University-Industrial R and D Cooperation. In: Hetesi, E. – Kürtösi, Zs. (eds.): Diversity of Research at the Szeged Institute of Business Studies. Szeged: JATEPress, pp. 75–95.
Voeten, J. – de Haan, J. – de Groot, G. – Roome, N. (2015): Understanding Responsible Innovation in Small Producers’ Clusters in Vietnam through Actor-Network Theory. European Journal of Development Research 27(2): 289–307.
Zouaghi, F. – Sánchez, M. (2016): Has the Global Financial Crisis Had Different Effects on Innovation Performance in the Agri-Food Sector by Comparison to the Rest of the Economy? Trends in Food Science & Technology 50(4): 230–242.