Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Boundaries of Scientific Innovation in the EU Green Deal Context Cover

The Boundaries of Scientific Innovation in the EU Green Deal Context

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2022

References

  1. [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 ScholarBack to article
  2. [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 ScholarBack to article
  3. [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 ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Gough D., Oliver S., Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage, 2017.10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.2.95
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Bhattacherjee A. Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks collection 3 (2nd ed.). Tampa: University of South Florida, 2012.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [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 ScholarBack to article
  7. [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 ScholarBack to article
  8. [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 ScholarBack to article
  9. [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 ScholarBack to article
  10. [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 ScholarBack to article
  11. [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 ScholarBack to article
  12. [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 ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Owen R., et al. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: Wiley, 2013:27–50.10.1002/9781118551424.ch2
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [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 ScholarBack to article
  15. [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 ScholarBack to article
  16. [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 ScholarBack to article
  17. [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 ScholarBack to article
  18. [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 ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Rose N. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.10.1017/CBO9780511488856
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Wilsdon J., Willis R. See-Through Science. Demos, London: Demos, 2004.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [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 ScholarBack to article
  22. [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 ScholarBack to article
  23. [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 ScholarBack to article
  24. [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, 2018:55–61.10.4324/9781351201117-8
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [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 ScholarBack to article
  26. [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 ScholarBack to article
  27. [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 ScholarBack to article
  28. [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 ScholarBack to article
  29. [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 ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] The Royal Society. New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: The Royal Society, 2010.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Copeland D. Science Diplomacy. The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2016:628–641.10.4135/9781473957930.n52
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. [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 ScholarBack to article
  33. [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 ScholarBack to article
  34. [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 ScholarBack to article
  35. [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 ScholarBack to article
  36. [36] Ruffini P.-B. Science and Diplomacy. A New Dimension of International Relations. New York: Springer, 2017.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. [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 ScholarBack to article
  38. [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 ScholarBack to article
  39. [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 ScholarBack to article
  40. [40] Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2013) The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. [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 ScholarBack to article
  42. [42] CERN. CERN Annual Report 2017. Geneva: CERN, 2018.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. [43] CERN. CERN Annual Report 2019. Geneva: CERN, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. [44] CERN. CERN Environmental Report 2017–2018. Geneva: CERN, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 115 - 128
Published on: Mar 7, 2022
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 times per year
Keywords:
Environmental policy,
European Organisation for Nuclear Research,
responsible innovation,
science diplomacy
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2022 Aija Ruse, Jelena Pubule, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)Next article