1. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 321480 Dott. Robert GianniProf. Philippe Goujon

2. ◦ Potentially adopt an apriori, neutralizing approach to normative claims. ◦ The criteria for justification don’t always correspond to criteria for application ◦ Don’t take into account that rationality doesn’t contain in itself the conditions of its own determination (Maesschalck & Lenoble 2003, 2006; Dupuy & Grinbaum 2004; Ferry 2002). ◦ The context is presumed but never assumed. 2 2

3. 3 Reason doesn‘t contain within itself its own determinations From pure principles of thought, logic, consistency we don ’ t get substantive content The reasons to accept an argument as valid aren‘t necessarily reasons to accept its conclusion as a maxim for action We have to value the content of an argument, besides accepting its validity, to adopt its conclusions This is a problem between proceduralism and substantivism We see the limits of proceduralism in substantial contexts E.g. “ Privacy ” is well established by argument as something worth protecting – but what does it mean here, now, in this context?

4. ◦ Assume a rationalistic perspective by reducing every responsibility to a pre-determinable assessment based on calculation of probability ◦ Mathematization of life that fails to grasp its complexity (Dupuy & Grinbaum 2004) ◦ Proceduralist approaches that fails in being effective presupposing the context 4 4

5. 5 5

6. Logically paradoxical: Prediction of the unknown (x=X) (von Neumann 1949 ) Ethically wrong: Mathematization of life ( Reification of subjective matters/ Presuppositions of Ethical Principles in order to determine Ethical Principles (Jonas 1979)Avoidance of values and ‘life-world’ by conflation to reductive proceduralism) Economically ineffective: Application could be denied (GMO, Nano, etc.) 6 6 RRI tends to be reduced in general to some sort of predictable assessment of impacts without taking into account the context so that the outcomes appear to be negative in different ways:

7.  Rationalistic Drift ◦ Presuppose terms of application by rational justification (Maesschalck & Lenoble 2003,2006, Ferry 2002)  Normative Plurality ignored ◦ Presume reductive normative sets (legal, economical, etc.)  Top-down decision making ◦ Impose normative sets by implicit or explicit means ◦ (Governance Models; Standard, Revised Standard, Consultation) 7 7

8.  Responsibility and Innovation have to be conceived in a different, interlaced way. ◦ Responsibility not only as accountability (van de Poel 2011, Vincent 2011, Ricoeur 1995 ) ◦ Innovation has to be implemented in its paradigm and process stage (Bessant 2013) 8 8

9.  First: Innovation has to be boosted through incentives and freedom of thought at its initial stage. In a second moment:  Participation has to be enhanced quantitatively in terms of… ◦ Time – at every stage of the process (Dynamic Process) ◦ Space - by the highest number of different stakeholders potentially involved (Normative Horizons)  …and qualitatively in terms of: ◦ Influence in the decision making process (Fung 2012). ◦ and finally: ◦ the application of economic standard can be applied to the product prototype.  Norms have to be constructed through a two folded process of reflexivity (1 st order & 2 nd order) (Lenoble & Maesschalck 2003, 2006, Dupuy & Grinbaum 2004) 9 9

10.  Standard Model  Consultation Model  Revised-Standard Model  Co-construction Model 10

11.  Analytical Grid 11 What is the relation of the norms construction with these parameters?

12. 12 Only by accounting for values and norms during the processes of technical development can we: Incentivise the adoption of governance injunctions by their addressees within projects and in broader public We need this to ensure ethics conditions development and is thereby proactive in research – This requires reflexive accounting for values and norms – Incentivisation via policy instruments – An opening of discussion on ethical matters across hitherto divided levels Expert, research stakeholder and public

13. Practical Examples: How ethic tools are really effective?  Ethic Tools (Ethical Board, Committees, Focus Groups) usually adopted could be empty or not leading to a change in the research trajectory. (Are participants able to influence the decision making process? In which way? How deep?)  Apart from being used, these tools have to be implemented in their effectiveness. 13

14. 14