7 found
Order:
  1.  33
    Anchoring European Governance: Two Versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU Fundamental Rights as ‘Normative Anchor Points’.Daniele Ruggiu - 2015 - NanoEthics 9 (3):217-235.
    Among the various experiments in ‘new governance’, the model of Responsible Research and Innovation is emerging in the European landscape as quite promising. Up to now, there have been two versions of RRI: a socio-empirical version which tends to underline the role of democratic processes aimed at identifying values on which governance needs to be anchored and a normative version which stresses the role of EU goals as ‘normative anchor points’ of both governance strategies and policy making. Both versions are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  2.  27
    Temporal Perspectives of the Nanotechnological Challenge to Regulation: How Human Rights Can Contribute to the Present and Future of Nanotechnologies.Daniele Ruggiu - 2013 - NanoEthics 7 (3):201-215.
    Expectations play a central role in understanding scientific and technological changes. Future-oriented representations are also central with regard to nanotechnologies as they can guide policy activities, provide structures and legitimation, attract different interests, focus policy-makers’ attention and foster investments for research. However, the emphasis on future scenarios tends to underrate the complexity of the challenges of the present market of nanotechnologies by flattening them under the needs and promises of scientific research. This is particularly apparent if we consider the viewpoint (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  3.  11
    Inescapable Frameworks: Ethics of Care, Ethics of Rights and the Responsible Research and Innovation Model.Daniele Ruggiu - 2020 - Philosophy of Management 19 (3):237-265.
    Notwithstanding the EU endorsement, so far Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is discussed as regards its definition, its features and its conceptual core: innovation and responsibility. This conceptual indeterminacy is a source of disagreements at the political level, giving rise to a plurality of outcomes and versions upheld within the same model of governance. Following a Charles Taylor’s suggestion, this conceptual opening of the RRI model can be explained by the existence of plural, clashing moral frameworks: discourse ethics, Aristotelian ethics, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4. Anti-doping, purported rights to privacy and WADA's whereabouts requirements: A legal analysis.Oskar MacGregor, Richard Griffith, Daniele Ruggiu & Mike McNamee - 2013 - Fair Play 1 (2):13-38.
    Recent discussions among lawyers, philosophers, policy researchers and athletes have focused on the potential threat to privacy posed by the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) whereabouts requirements. These requirements demand, among other things, that all elite athletes file their whereabouts information for the subsequent quarter on a quarterly basis and comprise data for one hour of each day when the athlete will be available and accessible for no advance notice testing at a specified location of their choosing. Failure to file one’s (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  5.  31
    Models of Anticipation Within the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework: the Two RRI Approaches and the Challenge of Human Rights.Daniele Ruggiu - 2019 - NanoEthics 13 (1):53-78.
    Anticipation is one of the main goals of new governance models, such as Responsible Research and Innovation. However, there is not a single mode of anticipation in this model. Two approaches can be addressed within the RRI framework: a socio-empirical one, which tends to underline the role of the democratic processes, aimed at identifying values on which governance needs to be anchored ; and a normative one, which stresses the role of EU goals as ‘normative anchor points’ in governance. These (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  22
    A Reply to Groves.Daniele Ruggiu - 2016 - NanoEthics 10 (1):111-116.
    In this article, I respond to the criticisms of my ideas made by Christopher Groves in his piece “Logic of Choice or Logic of Care? Uncertainty, Technological Mediation and Responsible Innovation”, which was published in this journal. In my refutation of his objections, I firstly argue that, thanks to the work of the European Court of Human Rights, human rights are continuously evolving in Europe and therefore constitute a framework that is open to the future. Secondly, I argue that, through (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  14
    Joo-Young Lee: A human rights framework for intellectual property, innovation and access to medicines: Ashgate, 2015, 300 pp, $49.95 , ISBN: 978-1-4724-1061-0.Daniele Ruggiu - 2019 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (2):161-163.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark