1. bookVolume 26 (2022): Edizione 1 (January 2022)
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2255-8837
Prima pubblicazione
26 Mar 2010
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
access type Accesso libero

The Boundaries of Scientific Innovation in the EU Green Deal Context

Pubblicato online: 07 Mar 2022
Volume & Edizione: Volume 26 (2022) - Edizione 1 (January 2022)
Pagine: 115 - 128
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2255-8837
Prima pubblicazione
26 Mar 2010
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
Abstract

The dynamics of global energy and climate agenda progresses rapidly. The European Union has frequently taken an active role in international climate policy by developing relevant strategies in as early as the nineties the last century, and today promoting an ambitious EU Green Deal to become climate neutral by 2050. However, despite its ambition and recent success in meeting most 2020 goals, the EU does not have an easy schedule to progress on its climate and energy targets for 2030. Recognizing the transition, one of the scientific excellences European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) published the first environmental report in the beginning of 2020. Through a wide range of environmental activities and clearly disseminated targets, this organisation actually brought to the table a discourse on how scientific organisation can be part of EU Green Deal actions and how to perform research within the scope of the environmental context. This article focuses on two concepts to contribute to larger discussions in both the research and governance communities, how researchers should conduct their science, and what respective responsibilities of researchers, their institutes, have in terms of European environmental policy. Literature was reviewed to find a theoretical approach to the environment, responsible innovation and science diplomacy. The research was developed through literature study to identify and describe the respective indicators as well as through an analysis of secondary sources whereby a previous attempt to collect and analyse other sources had been conducted by scholars in respect to the relationship between innovation and the environment.

Keywords

[1] Nikas A., et al. Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe. Energy 2021:215:119153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.11915310.1016/j.energy.2020.119153 Search in Google Scholar

[2] Stirling A. Opening up and closing down: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology & Human Values 2008:33:262–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390731126510.1177/0162243907311265 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Davies D., et al. Creative learning environments in education-A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity 2012:8:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.00410.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004 Search in Google Scholar

[4] Gough D., Oliver S., Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bhattacherjee A. Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks collection 3 (2nd ed.). Tampa: University of South Florida, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Sharif B. The relations between acculturation and creativity and innovation in higher education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review 2019:28:100287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.10028710.1016/j.edurev.2019.100287 Search in Google Scholar

[7] Goldfarb S., Marcellonib C., Shaw K. Innovating science communication: the structure supporting ATLAS Education & Outreach. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings 2016:273–275:1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.09.20410.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.09.204 Search in Google Scholar

[8] Bloomfield J., Steward F. The Politics of the Green New Deal. The Political Quarterly 2020:91(4):770–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.1291710.1111/1467-923X.12917 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Linnér B. O., Wibeck V. Conceptualising variations in societal transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy 2020:106:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.00710.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.007 Search in Google Scholar

[10] Skjærseth J. B. Towards a European Green Deal: The evolution of EU climate and energy policy mixes. International Environmental Agreements 2021:21:25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09529-410.1007/s10784-021-09529-4 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Stilgoea J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 2013:42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.00810.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 Search in Google Scholar

[12] Landeweerd L., et al. Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: a contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2015:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y453111626260065 Search in Google Scholar

[13] Owen R., et al. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: Wiley, 2013:27–50. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Lacey J., Coates R., Herington M. Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2020:7(3):427–449.10.1080/23299460.2020.1800969 Search in Google Scholar

[15] Ravetz J. The science of ‘what-if?’ Futures 1997:29:533–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.180096910.1080/23299460.2020.1800969 Search in Google Scholar

[16] Borup M., et al. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2006:18:285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732060077700210.1080/09537320600777002 Search in Google Scholar

[17] Swierstra T., Rip A. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 2007:3:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0005-810.1007/s11569-007-0005-8 Search in Google Scholar

[18] Lövbrand E., Pielke R., Beck S. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 2011:36:474–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224391036615410.1177/0162243910366154 Search in Google Scholar

[19] Rose N. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.10.1017/CBO9780511488856 Search in Google Scholar

[20] Wilsdon J., Willis R. See-Through Science. Demos, London: Demos, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 2003:41:223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102555751232010.1023/A:1025557512320 Search in Google Scholar

[22] van Oudheusden M. Questioning ‘participation’: a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 2011:17:673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9313-z10.1007/s11948-011-9313-z21952725 Search in Google Scholar

[23] Gillard R., et al. Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim. Change 2016:7:251–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.38410.1002/wcc.384 Search in Google Scholar

[24] Pacala S., Socolow R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Planning for Climate Change: A Reader in Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Design for Resilient Cities. Oxfordshire: Tayler and Francis, 2018:55–61. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Turekian V. The Evolution of Science Diplomacy. Global Policy 2018:9(3):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.1262210.1111/1758-5899.12622 Search in Google Scholar

[26] Özkaragöz D. E., Uygun Z, Akçomak I. S. Can science diplomacy address the global climate change challenge? Environmental Policy and Government 2021:31:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.191110.1002/eet.1911 Search in Google Scholar

[27] Hornsby D. J., Parshotam A. Science diplomacy, epistemic communities, and practice in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Policy 2018:9(3):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.1256510.1111/1758-5899.12565 Search in Google Scholar

[28] Goodsite M. E., et al. The role of science diplomacy: A historical development and international legal framework of arctic research stations under conditions of climate change, post-cold war geopolitics and globalization/power transition. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2016:6(4):645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0329-610.1007/s13412-015-0329-6 Search in Google Scholar

[29] Davis L. S., Patman, R. G. New day or false Dawn? Science diplomacy – New day or false Dawn? Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2015:261–275.10.1142/9789814440073_0014 Search in Google Scholar

[30] The Royal Society. New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: The Royal Society, 2010. Search in Google Scholar

[31] Copeland D. Science Diplomacy. The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2016:628–641.10.4135/9781473957930.n52 Search in Google Scholar

[32] Hölscher J. K., Wittmayer J. M., Loorbach D. Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environ. Innovation Societal Transitions 2018:27:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.00710.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007 Search in Google Scholar

[33] Hone K. E., Kurbalija J. Accelerating Basic Science in an Intergovernmental Framework: Learning from CERN’s Science Diplomacy. Global Policy 2018:9(3):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.1258910.1111/1758-5899.12589 Search in Google Scholar

[34] Lalli R. (2021) Crafting Europe from CERN to Dubna: Physics as diplomacy in the foundation of the European Physical Society. Centaurus 2021:63:103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.1230410.1111/1600-0498.12304 Search in Google Scholar

[35] Quevedo F. Science and Diplomacy. The Importance of International Research Institutions for Science Diplomacy. 2013 [Online]. [Accessed dd.mm.yyyy]. Available: https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2013/importance-international-research-institutions-for-science-diplomacy Search in Google Scholar

[36] Ruffini P.-B. Science and Diplomacy. A New Dimension of International Relations. New York: Springer, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Stein J. A. Science, Technology and European Foreign Policy: European Integration, Global Interaction. Science and Public Policy 2002:29(6):463–477. https://doi.org/10.3152/14715430278178078710.3152/147154302781780787 Search in Google Scholar

[38] Robinson M. The CERN Community; A Mechanism for Effective Global Collaboration? Global Policy 2019:10(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.1260810.1111/1758-5899.12608 Search in Google Scholar

[39] Lami S. Science & Diplomacy. Challenges and New Requirements for International Collaborations. 2017 [Online]. [Accessed 15.04.2021]. Available: https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2017/mega-science-collaborations Search in Google Scholar

[40] Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2013) The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 Search in Google Scholar

[41] Palmer S. E., Schibeci R. A. What Conceptions of Science Communication are Espoused by Science Research Funding Bodies? Public Understanding of Science 2014:23:511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251245529510.1177/096366251245529525414920 Search in Google Scholar

[42] CERN. CERN Annual Report 2017. Geneva: CERN, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[43] CERN. CERN Annual Report 2019. Geneva: CERN, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[44] CERN. CERN Environmental Report 2017–2018. Geneva: CERN, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo