Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Setting the Conceptual and Institutional Stage
2.1. Safe-by-Design: Technical Knowledge, Inclusive Deliberation, and an Open Mind
- I.
- Degrees of Uncertainty Around SafetyThis entails a broad conception of safety including both reactively identifying and addressing hazards to prevent undesirable outcomes (safety-I) and proactively focusing on the capacity to adapt to changing conditions and uncertainties and improve the odds of continued desirable outcomes (safety-II) [23]. In addition, it expands its attention to include not just calculable risks, but also concerns with a degree of uncertainty about either exposure or hazard, unknown unknowns, and concerns that emerge from indeterminacy or normative differences [19].
- II.
- Safety Throughout the Innovation Chain and Life CycleThis concerns the relevance given to issues occurring throughout the entire life-cycle of the product which, within SbD, is viewed as part of the potential design space when addressing any type of safety issue [19,24]. This would become apparent when one considers a broad variety of options in advancing the safety of an innovation such as: (re)design of the material, the product, the production process, the work environment, the value chain or the social or natural environment in which it will be used.
- III.
- Reflective and Proactive AttitudeA particular mindset in which safety beyond one’s own environment is an active concern regardless of one’s position in the innovation chain, ideally addressed in deliberation and collaboration with a range of pertinent actors. On an individual level this requires actors to assume a certain degree of responsibility, or at the very least an active interest, for the safety impacts of their work beyond one’s direct sphere of influence.
2.2. Safe-by-Design in Academia: Research, Innovation and Education
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Making Sense of Safety
4.2. Responsibility for Safety
4.3. Teaching Safe-by-Design
5. Conclusions
- With respect to the meaning attributed to safety, there appears to be a clear distinction between safety in the work environment, more distant adverse impacts on health and environment, and safety in situations where impacts display higher levels of uncertainty. None of these appeared to be a topic of substantial critical reflection in academic practice.
- Concerning perceived responsibility for safety, respondents only see a role for themselves in the context of issues they perceive to be within their immediate sphere of influence, such as ensuring safe working conditions.
- While presently respondents’ experiences in teaching about safety is largely confined to teaching about formalized procedures pertinent to what happens on the laboratory shop floor, respondents’ perspectives on what future generations of researchers and innovators ought to be taught about safety suggest they do see added value in expanding and articulating safety concepts in ways that go well beyond current practices.
- 4.
- Respondents’ cohering perspectives on (i) safety, (ii) responsibility for safety and (iii) teaching about safety fit well with their efforts at demarcating what constitutes good science from what is not.
6. Discussion
6.1. Where Safety Can Be Safely Considered
6.2. Teaching and Views on Knowledge
6.3. Tilling the Soil
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marchant, G.E. Addressing the Pacing Problem; Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2011; Volume 7, pp. 199–205. [Google Scholar]
- Rotolo, D.; Hicks, D.; Martin, B.R. What is an emerging technology? Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1827–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engineering Biology Research Consortium. Engineering Biology: A Research Roadmap for the Next-Generation Bioeconomy. 2019. Available online: https://roadmap.ebrc.org (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Pokrajac, L.; Abbas, A.; Chrzanowski, W.; Dias, G.M.; Eggleton, B.J.; Maguire, S.; Maine, E.; Malloy, T.; Nathwani, J.; Nazar, L.; et al. Nanotechnology for a sustainable future: Addressing global challenges with the international network4sustainable nanotechnology. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 18608–18623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, D.; MacGarvin, M.; Stirling, A.; Keys, J.; Wynne, B.; Vaz, S.G. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000; Harremoës, P., Ed.; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz-Plaschg, C.; Kallhoff, A.; Eisenberger, I. Special section: Safer by design in the nano-field. Nanoethics 2017, 11, 277–311. [Google Scholar]
- Van Gelder, P.; Taebi, B.; Robaey, I.; Klaassen, P. Special Issue: Safe-by-Design: Conceptualizations, Principles, Operationalizations and Practices. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/special_issues/safe_design (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Ross, A.; Athanassoulis, N. The social nature of engineering and its implications for risk taking. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2010, 16, 147–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waelbers, K. Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2009, 15, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pellizzoni, L. Risk and responsibility in a manufactured world. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2010, 16, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouchaut, B.; Asveld, L. Safe-by-design: Stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations of how to deal with uncertain risks of emerging biotechnologies in the Netherlands. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 1632–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Gelder, P.; Klaassen, P.; Taebi, B.; Walhout, B.; van Ommen, R.; van de Poel, I.; Robaey, Z.; Asveld, L.; Balkenende, R.; Hollmann, F.; et al. Safe-by-design in engineering: An overview and comparative analysis of engineering disciplines. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krans, N.; Hernandez, L.; Noorlander, C. Nanotechnology and Safe-by-Design. Inventory of Research into Safe-by-Design Horizon 2020 Projects from 2013 to 2020; Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2021.
- Hendershot, D.C. An overview of inherently safer design. Process Saf. Prog. 2006, 25, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuele, F.A. Prevention through Design (PtD): History and future. J. Saf. Res. 2008, 39, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anastas, P.; Eghbali, N. Green chemistry: Principles and practice. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van de Poel, I.; Robaey, Z. Safe-by-design: From safety to responsibility. Nanoethics 2017, 11, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Klaassen, P.; Kupper, F.; Vermeulen, S.; Rijnen, M.; Popa, E.; Broerse, J. The conceptualization of RRI: An iterative approach. In Responsible Innovation 3; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1568–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klaassen, P.; Rijnen, M.; Vermeulen, S.; Kupper, F.; Broerse, J. Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. In Responsible Research and Innovation; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2018; pp. 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollnagel, E. Is safety a subject for science? Saf. Sci. 2014, 67, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallergi, A.; Asveld, L. Biocomposite: Safe-by-Design for the Circular Economy. 2021. Available online: https://safebydesign.mett.nl/documenten/onderzoek+documenten/biocomposiet+safebydesign/default.aspx (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Soeteman-Hernández, L.G.; Blab, G.A.; Carattino, A.; Dekker, F.; Dekkers, S.; van der Linden, M.; van Silfhout, A.; Noorlander, C.W. Challenges of implementing nano-specific safety and safe-by-design principles in academia. NanoImpact 2020, 19, 100243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stilgoe, J. Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2018, 48, 25–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blumer, H. What is wrong with social theory? Am. Sociol. Rev. 1954, 19, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, G.A. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006, 5, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffart, N. A member check procedure to enhance rigor in naturalistic research. West. J. Nurs. Res. 1991, 13, 522–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gieryn, T.F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 781–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz-Plaschg, C.; Kallhoff, A.; Eisenberger, I. Making nanomaterials safer by design? Nanoethics 2017, 11, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edwards, M.; Jabs, L.B. When safety culture backfires: Unintended consequences of half-shared governance in a high tech workplace. Soc. Sci. J. 2009, 46, 707–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishmaev, G.; Vermaas, P.; Hoeneveld, D.; Gelder, P. Safe by design regulation for academic experimentation and value conflicts: An exploration of solution directions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schraw, G.; Olafson, L. Teachers’ epistemological world views and educational practices. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 3, 178–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendixen, L.D.; Feucht, F.C. Personal epistemology in the classroom: What does research and theory tell us and where do we need to go next? In Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research and Implications for Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Feucht, F.C.; Brownlee, J.L.; Schraw, G. Moving beyond reflection: Reflexivity and epistemic cognition in teaching and teacher education. In Educational Psychologist; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2017; Volume 52, pp. 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofer, B.K.; Bendixen, L.D. Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, Constructs and Critical Issues; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muis, K.R.; Bendixen, L.D.; Haerle, F.C. Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 18, 3–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feucht, F.C. The Nature of Epistemic Climates in Elementary Classrooms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Pulmones, R. Linking students’ epistemological beliefs with their metacognition in a chemistry classroom. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2010, 19, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardimon, M.O. Role obligations. J. Philos. 1994, 91, 333–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, H. The Moral terrain of science. Erkenntnis 2014, 79, 961–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norström, A.V.; Cvitanovic, C.; Löf, M.F.; West, S.; Wyborn, C.; Balvanera, P.; Bednarek, A.T.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; de Bremond, A.; et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turnhout, E.; Metze, T.; Wyborn, C.; Klenk, N.; Louder, E. The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellizzoni, L. Responsibility and environmental governance. Environ. Polit. 2004, 13, 541–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Poel, I.; Fahlquist, J.N.; Doorn, N.; Zwart, S.; Royakkers, L. The problem of many hands: Climate change as an example. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2012, 18, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stahl, B.C.; Akintoye, S.; Bitsch, L.; Bringedal, B.; Eke, D.; Farisco, M.; Grasenick, K.; Guerrero, M.; Knight, W.; Leach, T.; et al. From responsible research and innovation to responsibility by design. J. Responsib. Innov. 2021, 8, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirowski, P.; Sent, E.-M. Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fochler, M.; Felt, U.; Müller, R. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 2016, 54, 175–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pinheiro, R.; Langa, P.V.; Pausits, A. The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2015, 5, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Krouwel, S.J.C.; Dierickx, E.R.; Heesterbeek, S.; Klaassen, P. Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042075
Krouwel SJC, Dierickx ER, Heesterbeek S, Klaassen P. Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(4):2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042075
Chicago/Turabian StyleKrouwel, Sam Jan Cees, Emma Rianne Dierickx, Sara Heesterbeek, and Pim Klaassen. 2022. "Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 4: 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042075