The establishment of responsible innovation requires four key institutional changes. First, innovation must be value-driven. Second, an ethics of co-responsibility among stakeholders must be implemented. Third, innovation should be made directional and manageable. Fourth, market failures need to be addressed to facilitate necessary transformative changes, especially with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This research project will take into account the evolution of Living Labs and various specialized Living Labs (e.g., urban labs, social labs, and responsible Living Labs) to assess to what extent they address these institutional requirements. On this basis, the concept of a new dedicated Living Lab: a Responsible Research and Innovation Lab for Engineering Practices will be introduced. Subsequently this dedicated Living Lab will be operationalised on a theme from the engineering sciences. We will consider innovations stemming from digital tech for Health issues, additive manufacturing or other engineering pratices. We will deploy participatory foresight, to enable a form of anticipatory governance of emerging new innovations.
This dedicated ling lab is contextualised in a broader context of a deliberative democracy: Living Labs can be seen as spaces for Organisational Learning and Collective Experimentation:Living Labs: ‘real-life test and experimentation environments that foster co-creation and open innovation among the main actors of the Quadruple Helix Model, namely: Citizens, Governmental Organisations, Industrial organisations and Academia’ (ENoLL 2024)It operationalises an important feature of Responsible Research and Innovation: Making stakeholders co-responsible and mutually responsive to each other by engaging them in an open co-creation/ co-enquiry process. (among other on the basis of participatory foresight of emerging technologies and innovations)The idea of 'openess' and 'mutual reponsiveness' as values of actors and institutions will also be subject of analysis.Science and innovation can be better fostered in an open, democratic society than in other types of societies. The norm of civic participation in a ‘democracy’ is a lived ideal for citizens, just as the norm of ‘communalism’ is a lived ideal for the scientific community. Both norms presuppose the values of ‘openness’ and 'mutual responsiveness' among scientist and citizens.This highlights ‘openness’ not as a prescriptive norm but as a value of the institution of science. Simultaneously, ‘openness’ is also an institutional value of a democracy. However, science and democracy are dependent on the extent to which scientist and citizens engage on the basis of these norms. How can we best encourage and incentivise those?