Comparing Cultures of Responsible Innovation across Bioengineering Communities View Homepage


Ontology type: schema:MonetaryGrant     


Grant Info

YEARS

2015-2018

FUNDING AMOUNT

349924 USD

ABSTRACT

This action funds a three year standard grant in the cross-directorate program of Cultivating Cultures for Ethical STEM. Issues surrounding genetic engineering, biotechnology, and synthetic biology are contentious, especially when applied to food, the environment, and industrial applications for which direct human consent and medical benefits are not present. How researchers, developers, and policy-makers communicate about and reflect upon their work is of utmost importance to the fields of bioengineering. This research fills an important niche by encouraging those involved in biotechnology innovation systems to reflect on the ethical dimensions of their work and what it means to innovate responsibly. At the same time, this research contributes to important comparative research on conceptions of responsible innovation across four types of institutions. Increased understanding about how participants within and across various professional contexts conceive of and frame the ethical dimensions of their work can assist with future cross-sector dialogue, and potentially conflict resolution. The research employs a novel approach for comparative analyses of meanings of responsible innovation and ethics in bioengineering, while cultivating socially-responsible cultures of R&D among graduate students, faculty, and outside practitioners in genetic engineering and synthetic biology (bioengineering). It innovates in four key respects: 1) it focuses on bioengineering, specifically in areas in which engineering ethics programs have not routinely been applied, genetic engineering and synthetic biology; 2) it evaluates an example pedagogy of engaged scholarship, student facilitation of focus groups, for learning and cultivating ethical cultures; 3) it uses framings of responsible innovation and appreciative inquiry as key parts of the dialogue about ethical cultures in bioengineering; and 4) it compares meanings of responsible innovation across four sectors of bioengineering: government, academe, industry, and non-profit organizations. Twelve focus groups (three from each sector), pre- and post-surveys, and a values-mapping tool are being used for data collection. Example hypotheses tested include: 1) that participants within types of organizational communities conceptualize responsible innovation for bioengineering in similar ways sharing several secondary values as well as core values (tight coalitions); 2) participants across types of organizations differ in conceptions of responsible innovation, but share some policy core and secondary values (loose coalitions); and 3) interest in responsible innovation and ethics, on average, increase in both external-participants and internal-facilitators after the focus groups (versus pre-focus groups). The project promises to contribute to theory and methodology in Science and Technology Studies, science and technology policy, and ethics education, as well as serve as an example of the practice of "engaged scholarship," by which the activities of academe meet the needs of external communities and vice versa. More... »

URL

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1540244&HistoricalAwards=false

Related SciGraph Publications

JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

[
  {
    "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
    "about": [
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/2216", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }
    ], 
    "amount": {
      "currency": "USD", 
      "type": "MonetaryAmount", 
      "value": "349924"
    }, 
    "description": "This action funds a three year standard grant in the cross-directorate program of Cultivating Cultures for Ethical STEM. Issues surrounding genetic engineering, biotechnology, and synthetic biology are contentious, especially when applied to food, the environment, and industrial applications for which direct human consent and medical benefits are not present. How researchers, developers, and policy-makers communicate about and reflect upon their work is of utmost importance to the fields of bioengineering. This research fills an important niche by encouraging those involved in biotechnology innovation systems to reflect on the ethical dimensions of their work and what it means to innovate responsibly. At the same time, this research contributes to important comparative research on conceptions of responsible innovation across four types of institutions. Increased understanding about how participants within and across various professional contexts conceive of and frame the ethical dimensions of their work can assist with future cross-sector dialogue, and potentially conflict resolution. The research employs a novel approach for comparative analyses of meanings of responsible innovation and ethics in bioengineering, while cultivating socially-responsible cultures of R&D among graduate students, faculty, and outside practitioners in genetic engineering and synthetic biology (bioengineering). It innovates in four key respects: 1) it focuses on bioengineering, specifically in areas in which engineering ethics programs have not routinely been applied, genetic engineering and synthetic biology; 2) it evaluates an example pedagogy of engaged scholarship, student facilitation of focus groups, for learning and cultivating ethical cultures; 3) it uses framings of responsible innovation and appreciative inquiry as key parts of the dialogue about ethical cultures in bioengineering; and 4) it compares meanings of responsible innovation across four sectors of bioengineering: government, academe, industry, and non-profit organizations. Twelve focus groups (three from each sector), pre- and post-surveys, and a values-mapping tool are being used for data collection. Example hypotheses tested include: 1) that participants within types of organizational communities conceptualize responsible innovation for bioengineering in similar ways sharing several secondary values as well as core values (tight coalitions); 2) participants across types of organizations differ in conceptions of responsible innovation, but share some policy core and secondary values (loose coalitions); and 3) interest in responsible innovation and ethics, on average, increase in both external-participants and internal-facilitators after the focus groups (versus pre-focus groups). The project promises to contribute to theory and methodology in Science and Technology Studies, science and technology policy, and ethics education, as well as serve as an example of the practice of \"engaged scholarship,\" by which the activities of academe meet the needs of external communities and vice versa.", 
    "endDate": "2018-11-30T00:00:00Z", 
    "funder": {
      "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.457916.8", 
      "type": "Organization"
    }, 
    "id": "sg:grant.4318362", 
    "identifier": [
      {
        "name": "dimensions_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "4318362"
        ]
      }, 
      {
        "name": "nsf_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "1540244"
        ]
      }
    ], 
    "inLanguage": [
      "en"
    ], 
    "keywords": [
      "sector", 
      "dialogue", 
      "methodology", 
      "various professional contexts conceive", 
      "similar way", 
      "novel approach", 
      "direct human consent", 
      "example pedagogy", 
      "researchers", 
      "ethics education", 
      "important comparative research", 
      "technology policy", 
      "secondary value", 
      "area", 
      "action", 
      "pre-focus groups", 
      "Example hypotheses", 
      "type", 
      "vice versa", 
      "same time", 
      "non-profit organizations", 
      "practitioners", 
      "biotechnology", 
      "focus groups", 
      "values", 
      "policy-makers", 
      "meaning", 
      "student facilitation", 
      "food", 
      "academe", 
      "graduate students", 
      "core values", 
      "developers", 
      "loose coalition", 
      "organizational communities", 
      "ethics", 
      "Bioengineering Communities", 
      "issues", 
      "conception", 
      "comparative analysis", 
      "interest", 
      "theory", 
      "need", 
      "work", 
      "Cultivating Cultures", 
      "biotechnology innovation systems", 
      "environment", 
      "policy core", 
      "government", 
      "institutions", 
      "tight coalitions", 
      "post-survey", 
      "key part", 
      "engineering ethics programs", 
      "practice", 
      "conflict resolution", 
      "several secondary values", 
      "faculty", 
      "framing", 
      "utmost importance", 
      "industry", 
      "appreciative inquiry", 
      "Technology Studies", 
      "medical benefits", 
      "data collection", 
      "bioengineering", 
      "synthetic biology", 
      "science", 
      "genetic engineering", 
      "ethical dimensions", 
      "responsible innovation", 
      "organization", 
      "research", 
      "Ethical STEM", 
      "activity", 
      "participants", 
      "field", 
      "future cross-sector dialogue", 
      "key respects", 
      "engaged scholarship", 
      "important niche", 
      "ethical culture", 
      "R&D", 
      "external community", 
      "tool", 
      "culture", 
      "standard grant", 
      "example", 
      "project", 
      "cross-directorate program", 
      "industrial applications", 
      "responsible culture", 
      "pre-", 
      "years"
    ], 
    "name": "Comparing Cultures of Responsible Innovation across Bioengineering Communities", 
    "recipient": [
      {
        "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
        "type": "Organization"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
          "name": "North Carolina State University", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Kuzma", 
        "givenName": "Jennifer", 
        "id": "sg:person.0663202612.76", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "member": "sg:person.0663202612.76", 
        "roleName": "PI", 
        "type": "Role"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
          "name": "North Carolina State University", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Banks", 
        "givenName": "Erin", 
        "id": "sg:person.01176754731.06", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "member": "sg:person.01176754731.06", 
        "roleName": "Co-PI", 
        "type": "Role"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
          "name": "North Carolina State University", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Berube", 
        "givenName": "David", 
        "id": "sg:person.0577171674.60", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "member": "sg:person.0577171674.60", 
        "roleName": "Co-PI", 
        "type": "Role"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
          "name": "North Carolina State University", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Gould", 
        "givenName": "Fred", 
        "id": "sg:person.01305743525.33", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "member": "sg:person.01305743525.33", 
        "roleName": "Co-PI", 
        "type": "Role"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f", 
          "name": "North Carolina State University", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Herkert", 
        "givenName": "Joseph", 
        "id": "sg:person.07667756727.95", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "member": "sg:person.07667756727.95", 
        "roleName": "Co-PI", 
        "type": "Role"
      }
    ], 
    "sameAs": [
      "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.4318362"
    ], 
    "sdDataset": "grants", 
    "sdDatePublished": "2019-03-07T12:37", 
    "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
    "sdPublisher": {
      "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
      "type": "Organization"
    }, 
    "sdSource": "s3://com.uberresearch.data.processor/core_data/20181219_192338/projects/base/nsf_projects_8.xml.gz", 
    "startDate": "2015-12-01T00:00:00Z", 
    "type": "MonetaryGrant", 
    "url": "http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1540244&HistoricalAwards=false"
  }
]
 

Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/grant.4318362'

N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/grant.4318362'

Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/grant.4318362'

RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/grant.4318362'


 

This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

174 TRIPLES      19 PREDICATES      124 URIs      112 LITERALS      9 BLANK NODES

Subject Predicate Object
1 sg:grant.4318362 schema:about anzsrc-for:2216
2 schema:amount N2275e0734e864a1d8989c7dc2dc11a59
3 schema:description This action funds a three year standard grant in the cross-directorate program of Cultivating Cultures for Ethical STEM. Issues surrounding genetic engineering, biotechnology, and synthetic biology are contentious, especially when applied to food, the environment, and industrial applications for which direct human consent and medical benefits are not present. How researchers, developers, and policy-makers communicate about and reflect upon their work is of utmost importance to the fields of bioengineering. This research fills an important niche by encouraging those involved in biotechnology innovation systems to reflect on the ethical dimensions of their work and what it means to innovate responsibly. At the same time, this research contributes to important comparative research on conceptions of responsible innovation across four types of institutions. Increased understanding about how participants within and across various professional contexts conceive of and frame the ethical dimensions of their work can assist with future cross-sector dialogue, and potentially conflict resolution. The research employs a novel approach for comparative analyses of meanings of responsible innovation and ethics in bioengineering, while cultivating socially-responsible cultures of R&D among graduate students, faculty, and outside practitioners in genetic engineering and synthetic biology (bioengineering). It innovates in four key respects: 1) it focuses on bioengineering, specifically in areas in which engineering ethics programs have not routinely been applied, genetic engineering and synthetic biology; 2) it evaluates an example pedagogy of engaged scholarship, student facilitation of focus groups, for learning and cultivating ethical cultures; 3) it uses framings of responsible innovation and appreciative inquiry as key parts of the dialogue about ethical cultures in bioengineering; and 4) it compares meanings of responsible innovation across four sectors of bioengineering: government, academe, industry, and non-profit organizations. Twelve focus groups (three from each sector), pre- and post-surveys, and a values-mapping tool are being used for data collection. Example hypotheses tested include: 1) that participants within types of organizational communities conceptualize responsible innovation for bioengineering in similar ways sharing several secondary values as well as core values (tight coalitions); 2) participants across types of organizations differ in conceptions of responsible innovation, but share some policy core and secondary values (loose coalitions); and 3) interest in responsible innovation and ethics, on average, increase in both external-participants and internal-facilitators after the focus groups (versus pre-focus groups). The project promises to contribute to theory and methodology in Science and Technology Studies, science and technology policy, and ethics education, as well as serve as an example of the practice of "engaged scholarship," by which the activities of academe meet the needs of external communities and vice versa.
4 schema:endDate 2018-11-30T00:00:00Z
5 schema:funder https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.457916.8
6 schema:identifier N5a5cd33d38944a65aca17dae034a56ae
7 Nc79c5375ce5443018a1d13152880d6cd
8 schema:inLanguage en
9 schema:keywords Bioengineering Communities
10 Cultivating Cultures
11 Ethical STEM
12 Example hypotheses
13 R&D
14 Technology Studies
15 academe
16 action
17 activity
18 appreciative inquiry
19 area
20 bioengineering
21 biotechnology
22 biotechnology innovation systems
23 comparative analysis
24 conception
25 conflict resolution
26 core values
27 cross-directorate program
28 culture
29 data collection
30 developers
31 dialogue
32 direct human consent
33 engaged scholarship
34 engineering ethics programs
35 environment
36 ethical culture
37 ethical dimensions
38 ethics
39 ethics education
40 example
41 example pedagogy
42 external community
43 faculty
44 field
45 focus groups
46 food
47 framing
48 future cross-sector dialogue
49 genetic engineering
50 government
51 graduate students
52 important comparative research
53 important niche
54 industrial applications
55 industry
56 institutions
57 interest
58 issues
59 key part
60 key respects
61 loose coalition
62 meaning
63 medical benefits
64 methodology
65 need
66 non-profit organizations
67 novel approach
68 organization
69 organizational communities
70 participants
71 policy core
72 policy-makers
73 post-survey
74 practice
75 practitioners
76 pre-
77 pre-focus groups
78 project
79 research
80 researchers
81 responsible culture
82 responsible innovation
83 same time
84 science
85 secondary value
86 sector
87 several secondary values
88 similar way
89 standard grant
90 student facilitation
91 synthetic biology
92 technology policy
93 theory
94 tight coalitions
95 tool
96 type
97 utmost importance
98 values
99 various professional contexts conceive
100 vice versa
101 work
102 years
103 schema:name Comparing Cultures of Responsible Innovation across Bioengineering Communities
104 schema:recipient N1fe06548238348bea4480f41bd86b096
105 N2ae66e0f91a04e43b8ff61420f7ad75c
106 N8e7c3cd47ecf4d30afb1efbd407495f6
107 Ne7dba23f31604168b189a2a1c195745e
108 Nfad8b296653d41e4970bdc478f387e57
109 sg:person.01176754731.06
110 sg:person.01305743525.33
111 sg:person.0577171674.60
112 sg:person.0663202612.76
113 sg:person.07667756727.95
114 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
115 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.4318362
116 schema:sdDatePublished 2019-03-07T12:37
117 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
118 schema:sdPublisher Nd0b1a7d9dabf46cdac554bbc2c8698b7
119 schema:startDate 2015-12-01T00:00:00Z
120 schema:url http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1540244&HistoricalAwards=false
121 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
122 sgo:sdDataset grants
123 rdf:type schema:MonetaryGrant
124 N1fe06548238348bea4480f41bd86b096 schema:member sg:person.01176754731.06
125 schema:roleName Co-PI
126 rdf:type schema:Role
127 N2275e0734e864a1d8989c7dc2dc11a59 schema:currency USD
128 schema:value 349924
129 rdf:type schema:MonetaryAmount
130 N2ae66e0f91a04e43b8ff61420f7ad75c schema:member sg:person.07667756727.95
131 schema:roleName Co-PI
132 rdf:type schema:Role
133 N5a5cd33d38944a65aca17dae034a56ae schema:name nsf_id
134 schema:value 1540244
135 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
136 N8e7c3cd47ecf4d30afb1efbd407495f6 schema:member sg:person.0663202612.76
137 schema:roleName PI
138 rdf:type schema:Role
139 Nc79c5375ce5443018a1d13152880d6cd schema:name dimensions_id
140 schema:value 4318362
141 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
142 Nd0b1a7d9dabf46cdac554bbc2c8698b7 schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
143 rdf:type schema:Organization
144 Ne7dba23f31604168b189a2a1c195745e schema:member sg:person.01305743525.33
145 schema:roleName Co-PI
146 rdf:type schema:Role
147 Nfad8b296653d41e4970bdc478f387e57 schema:member sg:person.0577171674.60
148 schema:roleName Co-PI
149 rdf:type schema:Role
150 anzsrc-for:2216 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
151 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
152 sg:person.01176754731.06 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
153 schema:familyName Banks
154 schema:givenName Erin
155 rdf:type schema:Person
156 sg:person.01305743525.33 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
157 schema:familyName Gould
158 schema:givenName Fred
159 rdf:type schema:Person
160 sg:person.0577171674.60 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
161 schema:familyName Berube
162 schema:givenName David
163 rdf:type schema:Person
164 sg:person.0663202612.76 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
165 schema:familyName Kuzma
166 schema:givenName Jennifer
167 rdf:type schema:Person
168 sg:person.07667756727.95 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f
169 schema:familyName Herkert
170 schema:givenName Joseph
171 rdf:type schema:Person
172 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.40803.3f schema:name North Carolina State University
173 rdf:type schema:Organization
174 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.457916.8 schema:Organization
 




Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


...