Biobanking in Singapore is characterized by contested relations between funding ambitions and research practices, and different notions of what the (potential) value of storing samples and data for medical research is. Different biobanking efforts anticipate the production of public goods from stored materials in specifically situated ways. These efforts to produce public goods in the form of scientific and economic value can be fruitfully understood in terms of extraction, a complex sociotechnical process of retrieving (potential) value from raw materials, which both informs and is informed by specific social values. In exploring the extraction of potential value in relation to practice values, I propose the notion of value formations to account for the coproduction of and intersections between different forms of value(s) in scientific practices situated in particular social contexts. I trace value formations across the life span of biobanking collections, which range from recruitment, collection, and processing of samples to their storage, retrieval, and use. Observations along this life span show the social and temporal complexity of value-making in biobanking in Singapore, pointing to the contextual specificity of how biobanking is understood as a public good.

weitere Info: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01622439211069129

Anja Bauer, Alexander Bogner & Daniela Fuchs (2021): Rethinking societal engagement under the heading of Responsible Research and Innovation: (novel) requirements and challenges, Journal of Responsible Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1909812

Abstract:

Societal engagement is a key dimension of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), aiming at making science, technology and innovation more transparent, interactive and responsive. Within this article, we identify and discuss the specific requirements and challenges for societal engagement under the heading of RRI along five dimensions. First, engagement aims at shaping research and innovation in a socially robust manner. Second, RRI demands a balanced representation of and a balanced view by various actor groups. Third, RRI emphasises engagement moving upstream as well as continuous engagement. Fourth, RRI focusses on forms of invited participation and calls for two-way interactions. Fifth, with the emphasis on ethics as a driving force, RRI favours specific framings of research and innovation. In conclusion, two intertwined challenges arise for societal engagement under RRI: making the political character of science and technology explicit and therefore paying particular attention to framing in ‘invited participation’.