Vincent Blok
Vincent Blok is a Dutch philosopher and professor in Philosophy of Technology and Responsible Innovation at Wageningen University and professor in Philosophy of Data Science and AI at Erasmus University Rotterdam (The Netherlands). He is also scientific director of the 4TU Centre for Ethics of Technology, a collaboration of the four Technical Universities in the Netherlands, and chairman of the board of the International School for Philosophy (ISVW). In 2005 he received his PhD degree in philosophy at Leiden University with a specialization in philosophy of technology. Together with six PhD candidates and four Post-docs, he reflects on the meaning of disruptive technologies for the human condition and its environment from a continental philosophical perspective. His books include Ernst Jünger’s Philosophy of Technology (Routledge, 2017), Heidegger’s Concept of philosophical Method (Routledge, 2019), The Critique of Management (Routledge, 2021), From World to Earth. Philosophical Ecology of a threatened Planet (Boom, 2022 (in Dutch), and A new meaning of life. The novel as a signpost in a world at the turning point (Noordboek, 2024 (in Dutch). Blok published over two hundred articles in disciplinary philosophy journals like Philosophy & Technology, Synthese and JBSP, and in multi-disciplinary journals like Science, Environmental Values and Journal of Responsible Innovation. See www.vincentblok.nl for more information about his current research.
less
InterestsView All (38)
Uploads
Abstract: Because climate change can be seen as the blind spot of contemporary philosophy of technology, while the destructive side effects of technological progress are no longer deniable, this article reflects on the role of technologies in the constitution of the (post)Anthropocene world. Our first hypothesis is that humanity is not the primary agent involved in world-production, but concrete technologies. Our second hypothesis is that technological inventions at an ontic level have an ontological impact and constitutes world. As we object to classical philosophers of technology like Ihde and Heidegger, we will sketch the progressive contribution of our conceptuality to understand the role of technology in the Anthropocene world. Our third hypothesis is that technology has emancipatory potential and in this respect, can inaugurate a post-Anthropocene World. We consider these three hypotheses to develop a philosophical account of the ontology of te
We critically reflect on the concept of biomimicry. On the
basis of an analysis of the concept of biomimicry in the literature and its philosophical origin, we distinguish between a strong and a weaker concept of biomimicry. The strength of the strong concept of biomimicry is that nature is seen as a
measure by which to judge the ethical rightness of our technological innovations, but its weakness is found in questionable presuppositions. These presuppositions are
addressed by the weaker concept of biomimicry, but at the price that it is no longer possible to distinguish between exploitative and ecological types of technological
innovations.
In dit essayistische boek bespreekt filosoof Vincent Blok meer dan tachtig moderne en hedendaagse romans. Hij leest die romans op zo'n manier dat ze een nieuw licht werpen op wat een zinvol leven vermag, en wat de rol is van kunst en literatuur daarin. De romans tonen ons het einde van de wereld waarvan we afscheid moeten nemen, en wijzen ons de weg naar nieuwe werelden.
Ecologische ontologie
Vincent Blok ontwikkelt een ecologische ontologie van de aarde in tijden van klimaatverandering. Hij gaat in tegen de filosofische traditie door zijn ontologie niet antropocentrisch, maar eco-centrisch te oriënteren. Vervolgens presenteert hij een speculatieve ecologie van de aarde als mogelijkheidsvoorwaarde voor de menselijke bewoning van de wereld. Zijn nieuwe perspectief op onze zorg voor de aarde biedt relevante inzichten voor de milieu- en techniekfilosofie.
After questioning the self-evident concept of management, the author develops a philosophy of management with six dimensions of the nature of management: management as participation; management as resistance and responsive action; management as constitution of meaning; management as politico-economic governance; management as non-reductive stakeholder engagement; and management as epistemic insufficient entrepreneurship. These six dimensions of management are taken as points of departure to develop an integrated concept of business ethics, an individual competence for ethical business management, and a concept of ethical codes for corporate social responsible behavior. This new conception of philosophy of management and business ethics can guide future philosophical and empirical work on the nature of management.
The Critique of Management is an excellent resource for researchers, students, and professionals interested in philosophy of management, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility.
Vincent Blok addresses topics that have yet to be extensively discussed in Heidegger scholarship, including Heidegger’s method of questioning, the religious character of Heidegger’s philosophical method, and Heidegger’s conceptualization of philosophical method as explorative confrontation. He is also critical of Heidegger’s conceptuality and develops a post-Heideggerian concept of philosophical method, which provides a new perspective on the role of willing, poetry, and earth-interest in contemporary philosophy. This earth-interest turns out to be particularly important to consider and leads to critical reflections on Heidegger’s concept of Earth, the necessity of Earth-interest in contemporary philosophy, and a post-Heideggerian concept of the Earth.
Heidegger’s Concept of Philosophical Method will be of interest primarily to Heidegger scholars and graduate students, but its discussion of philosophical method and environmental philosophy will also appeal to scholars in other disciplines and areas of philosophy.
ambitions seems called for, now that RRI enters the global arena.
This paper focues on the key challenge that RRI is currently
facing: epistemic inclusion. From the beginning, there has been
the awareness that RRI must be open to multiple voices and
perspectives, coming from academia, and also from society at
large. Besides representing impressive bodies of knowledge,
academic disciplines face knowledge gaps as well and must reach
out to other knowledge forms, e.g. practical, experiential, and
indigenous knowledge. This paper analyses the challenges involved
in epistemic inclusion while outlining viable pathways towards
addressing them, based on experiences in European projects as our
‘laboratory’. After discussing interdisciplinarity, participatory research,
and epistemic pluralism, while also addressing the academic reward
system. Special attention is given to indigenous knowledge as a
case study for epistemic pluralism.
market or economic logic and miss the normative dimension of the call for circularity. The
transition to the CBE requires a fundamental reflection on the role of economic actors in the
social and ecological environment with significant consequences for their business
practices. Second, we will argue that the transition to the CBE requires the
acknowledgement of the normative and social dimensions of this transition at the meso and
macro levels, and the establishment of an environmental and social logic on the micro level
of business practices. Third, we will argue that the concept of responsible innovation (RI)
can help to articulate the normative and social dimensions of the transition to the CBE, and
enables the operationalisation of the environmental and social logic at the micro level. In
this respect, RI can be understood as a driver for the transition to the CBE.
Abstract: Because climate change can be seen as the blind spot of contemporary philosophy of technology, while the destructive side effects of technological progress are no longer deniable, this article reflects on the role of technologies in the constitution of the (post)Anthropocene world. Our first hypothesis is that humanity is not the primary agent involved in world-production, but concrete technologies. Our second hypothesis is that technological inventions at an ontic level have an ontological impact and constitutes world. As we object to classical philosophers of technology like Ihde and Heidegger, we will sketch the progressive contribution of our conceptuality to understand the role of technology in the Anthropocene world. Our third hypothesis is that technology has emancipatory potential and in this respect, can inaugurate a post-Anthropocene World. We consider these three hypotheses to develop a philosophical account of the ontology of te
We critically reflect on the concept of biomimicry. On the
basis of an analysis of the concept of biomimicry in the literature and its philosophical origin, we distinguish between a strong and a weaker concept of biomimicry. The strength of the strong concept of biomimicry is that nature is seen as a
measure by which to judge the ethical rightness of our technological innovations, but its weakness is found in questionable presuppositions. These presuppositions are
addressed by the weaker concept of biomimicry, but at the price that it is no longer possible to distinguish between exploitative and ecological types of technological
innovations.
In dit essayistische boek bespreekt filosoof Vincent Blok meer dan tachtig moderne en hedendaagse romans. Hij leest die romans op zo'n manier dat ze een nieuw licht werpen op wat een zinvol leven vermag, en wat de rol is van kunst en literatuur daarin. De romans tonen ons het einde van de wereld waarvan we afscheid moeten nemen, en wijzen ons de weg naar nieuwe werelden.
Ecologische ontologie
Vincent Blok ontwikkelt een ecologische ontologie van de aarde in tijden van klimaatverandering. Hij gaat in tegen de filosofische traditie door zijn ontologie niet antropocentrisch, maar eco-centrisch te oriënteren. Vervolgens presenteert hij een speculatieve ecologie van de aarde als mogelijkheidsvoorwaarde voor de menselijke bewoning van de wereld. Zijn nieuwe perspectief op onze zorg voor de aarde biedt relevante inzichten voor de milieu- en techniekfilosofie.
After questioning the self-evident concept of management, the author develops a philosophy of management with six dimensions of the nature of management: management as participation; management as resistance and responsive action; management as constitution of meaning; management as politico-economic governance; management as non-reductive stakeholder engagement; and management as epistemic insufficient entrepreneurship. These six dimensions of management are taken as points of departure to develop an integrated concept of business ethics, an individual competence for ethical business management, and a concept of ethical codes for corporate social responsible behavior. This new conception of philosophy of management and business ethics can guide future philosophical and empirical work on the nature of management.
The Critique of Management is an excellent resource for researchers, students, and professionals interested in philosophy of management, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility.
Vincent Blok addresses topics that have yet to be extensively discussed in Heidegger scholarship, including Heidegger’s method of questioning, the religious character of Heidegger’s philosophical method, and Heidegger’s conceptualization of philosophical method as explorative confrontation. He is also critical of Heidegger’s conceptuality and develops a post-Heideggerian concept of philosophical method, which provides a new perspective on the role of willing, poetry, and earth-interest in contemporary philosophy. This earth-interest turns out to be particularly important to consider and leads to critical reflections on Heidegger’s concept of Earth, the necessity of Earth-interest in contemporary philosophy, and a post-Heideggerian concept of the Earth.
Heidegger’s Concept of Philosophical Method will be of interest primarily to Heidegger scholars and graduate students, but its discussion of philosophical method and environmental philosophy will also appeal to scholars in other disciplines and areas of philosophy.
ambitions seems called for, now that RRI enters the global arena.
This paper focues on the key challenge that RRI is currently
facing: epistemic inclusion. From the beginning, there has been
the awareness that RRI must be open to multiple voices and
perspectives, coming from academia, and also from society at
large. Besides representing impressive bodies of knowledge,
academic disciplines face knowledge gaps as well and must reach
out to other knowledge forms, e.g. practical, experiential, and
indigenous knowledge. This paper analyses the challenges involved
in epistemic inclusion while outlining viable pathways towards
addressing them, based on experiences in European projects as our
‘laboratory’. After discussing interdisciplinarity, participatory research,
and epistemic pluralism, while also addressing the academic reward
system. Special attention is given to indigenous knowledge as a
case study for epistemic pluralism.
market or economic logic and miss the normative dimension of the call for circularity. The
transition to the CBE requires a fundamental reflection on the role of economic actors in the
social and ecological environment with significant consequences for their business
practices. Second, we will argue that the transition to the CBE requires the
acknowledgement of the normative and social dimensions of this transition at the meso and
macro levels, and the establishment of an environmental and social logic on the micro level
of business practices. Third, we will argue that the concept of responsible innovation (RI)
can help to articulate the normative and social dimensions of the transition to the CBE, and
enables the operationalisation of the environmental and social logic at the micro level. In
this respect, RI can be understood as a driver for the transition to the CBE.
stakeholders are entitled to participate in scientific and
technological decision-making by voicing their needs and
worries. Individuals who believe in science conspiracies (referred
to here as ‘science conspiracists’) pose a challenge to
implementing this ideal because it is not clear under what
conditions their inclusion in responsible innovation exercises is
possible and advisable. Yet precisely because of this uncertain
status, science conspiracists constitute an instructive case in point
to travel towards the edges of inclusion and understand how we
draw the line between ‘includables’ and ‘unincludables’. In this
paper, we seek to explore this relationship between responsible
innovation and science conspiracism by using the method of
thought experimentaiton. We test four possible exclusion criteria
for science conspiracists. We conclude by revisiting the
relationship between conspiracism and responsible innovation
and sketching a novel perspective on the ideal of stakeholder
inclusion.
The circular economy (CE) framework has captured the attention of industry and academia and received strong policy support. It is currently deemed as a powerful solution for sustainability, despite ongoing criticism on its oversimplification and lack of consideration of socio-ethical issues. In parallel, the concept of RRI has emerged strongly with a strong focus on the integration of social desirability in innovation under transparency, democracy and mutual responsiveness principles. In this paper, we critically examine the literature on the CE and RRI
in order to find out how the different focus of RRI may provide an innovation governance framework to strengthen the CE framework. There are two main ways in which RRI could further the CE: first, anticipating unexpected consequences, helping to break disciplinary
barriers and acknowledging systemic limits that are not currently taken into consideration; and second, the integration of socio-ethical issues in the CE, and addressing the social implications of the CE through stakeholder participation. However, future research should look at remaining blind spots of CE and RRI, such as non-technological innovation, the demand-side of innovation and the development of business models. With that objective, we suggest a research
agenda for common development of the frameworks.
Sustainable entrepreneurs are key actors in sustainability transitions; they develop needed innovations, create markets,
and pressure incumbents. While socio-technical transitions literature is well developed, questions remain in terms of
(1) the different roles that sustainable entrepreneurs can play in sustainable transitions, and (2) how best to empower
these roles. To explore these challenges, we review literature and construct a framework combining the multilevel
perspective and entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective. We apply this framework to the context of climate-smart
agriculture in (Western and Central) Europe. By analysing semi-structured interview data (n=27) we find that
sustainable entrepreneurs are constrained by ineffective policy, resistant users, as well as novel alignment issues within
the supply chain. We focus on the role of sustainable entrepreneurs as coordinators of action rather than developers of
technological innovation within transition contexts characterised by low landscape pressures, large unmotivated
incumbent firms, low consumer awareness and demand, and unincentivized users (farmers).
foothold in Europe and beyond, but it still remains unknown how
it can be implemented in the business context. This article
explores how social entrepreneurs integrate values into their de
facto responsible innovations, and provides empirically informed
strategies to develop, implement and scale these innovations. It is
based on an empirical investigation of 42 case studies of bestpractice
social entrepreneurs. This empirical study shows that
social entrepreneurs focus on creating direct socio-ethical value
for their target beneficiaries. They coordinate collective stakeholder
action to develop, implement and scale their systems-changing
solutions. And their bottom-up innovations are evaluated and scaled
for impact. Ultimately, institutional support is sought to create topdown
systems change. This article suggests a synthesised model of
integrated strategies for responsible innovation that also covers
implementation and scaling of innovation.
for sustainable development. A mixed method design was developed in which wouldbe
entrepreneurs were subjected to a questionnaire (n = 398) and to real‐life decision‐
making processes in a case assignment (n = 96). The results provide stepping
stones for implementing (moral) competencies in entrepreneurship education as a
possible avenue to move away from a sole focus on a profit‐driven mentality.
uptake of CSA technologies where their business models may be seen as adoption and scaling mechanisms. Drawing upon our fieldwork in Punjab (India) during which over 100 respondents
have been interviewed, critical issues and enabling factors for the business model of two types
of SMEs, i.e. farmer cooperatives and individual service providers of climate smart
technologies have been identified. Enabling factors supporting adoption are driven by scientific
and practical evidence of CSA technologies, good partnership between SMEs and research
institutes, good customer relationships and effective channels through farmers’ field trials.
Critical issues consist of distortive government subsidies on energy and the lack of market
intelligence affecting the profitability of the business model. Scaling is enhanced through
market intelligence and a favouring regulatory landscape. However, difficult socio-economic
circumstances and distortive government subsidies limit the role of SMEs business model as
mechanism for scaling.
First, we identified a set of entrepreneurial competencies MFI clients in developing countries require for higher performance, based on an extensive literature review (Smith and Perks (2006); Smart Force (2002); Van Dyke et al. (2001); Mano et al. (2011); Edgcomb (2002); Karlan and Valdivia (2011) and others. Secondly, a preliminary survey is conducted with 50 clients of uniCredit, a micro finance institution in Ghana. For this preliminary survey, 25 clients with good loan repayment and business performance and 25 clients with poor business performance and loan repayment are selected. The results provide information about the set of competencies MFI clients require in order to be successful. Thirdly focus group discussions with 20 clients will be done in order to describe and analyse the required set of competencies, which enables us to operationalize and establish the identified competencies in entrepreneurship training programs.
for more information: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/334b5c_61cd397ed4234cb3b46164f8ad739ec3.pdf
About the topic
This course discusses the main philosophical issues in relation to Responsible Innovation, an emerging concept in the EU context which highlights the relevance of social-ethical issues in research and innovation practices. This emerging concept calls for philosophical reflection on the nature, scope and applicability of responsibility and innovation in innovation practices in general, and the way social-ethical issues can be applied and addressed in specific fields like business, healthcare and energy in particular. Topics that will be covered include the nature of responsibility in responsible innovation, the role of societal values in innovation and value sensitive design, philosophical reflections on the role of knowledge and risk in innovation, constructive technology assessment and governance of responsible innovation, Responsible Innovation in the public sector (healthcare), responsible innovation in the private sector.
Students get to know some of the main positions in relation to philosophical issues in responsible innovation, the main arguments in the relevant debates and insight in the dilemma’s which appear in the practical application of responsible innovation in the public and private sector. Although the focus is on the philosophical and ethical issues raised by responsible innovation, we will also touch upon some more fundamental philosophical issues raised by responsible innovation. This includes issues like:
• The nature of responsibility in light of the unpredictability of the future impact of innovations
• The philosophical assumptions of the innovation paradigm
• The way (responsible) innovations affect experience and praxis
• Value incommensurability, value pluralism and the trade-offs between values in responsible innovation
Practical information
The course will take place from 10 to 12 January and from 15 to 19 January, in 2018. More information and a registration form can be found on the event's webpage. http://www.ozsw.nl/activity/philosophy-of-responsible-innovation/
The registration deadline is December 15th.
The course is free for:
• PhD students who are a member of the 4TU Center for Ethics and Technology and/or OZSW;
• Research Master students who are a member of the 4TU Center for Ethics and Technology and/or OZSW;
All others pay a tuition fee of 250 euros.
The course is mainly aimed at PhD students (alfa, gamma, beta) who start their research in the field of Responsible Research and Innovation, and PhD students in philosophy who want to learn more about philosophical and ethical reflection in the field of science and technology development. Students from universities outside The Netherlands are encouraged to subscribe for the course as well.
The course is organised by Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl). Please contact secretariaat@ozsw.nl for any practical inquiries.
Faced with the growing ecological crisis, Janine Benyus (1997) has argued that we can draw on the “3.8 billion years of research and development” already carried out by Nature in order to inhabit the earth sustainably, an approach known as biomimicry. This approach promises “soft chemistry” (Bensaude-Vincent 2002) working in water and at ambient temperatures, solar energy generation based on natural photosynthesis, the transition to circular economies in which everything is recycled, and much else besides. While biomimicry has been hailed as the “mantra of Silicon Valley” (Despommier 2011), a “revolutionary concept” capable of underpinning a “second industrial revolution” (Mathews 2011), only a relatively small number of philosophers of technology have thus far paid attention to it (cf. Bensaude-Vincent 2002, 2011; Mathews 2011; Blok & Gremmen 2016; Dicks 2016a). Mainstream philosophy of technology, by contrast, has generally preferred to concentrate on more controversial and ethically sensitive issues, such as synthetic biology, transhumanism, military technologies, artificial intelligence, and big data. The result is that biomimicry remains “philosophically under-developed, descriptive and ad hoc in its approach and accordingly piecemeal in its results” (Mathews 2011). In addition, since biomimicry has not been adequately theorized, it is also not entirely clear how it differs from and overlaps with other longstanding approaches to nature-inspired innovation, namely biomimetics, bionics, and bio-inspiration. The situation thus calls for a more systematic engagement with biomimicry on the part of philosophers of technology.
One promising path for going beyond the current “piecemeal results” produced by biomimicry is to explore its “grammar”, understood as the structural rules and principles that govern the production of complex sustainable systems based on natural models. After all, it is one thing to develop industrial fibres modelled on spider’s silk, high-speed trains modelled on the bill of the kingfisher, solar cells inspired by tree leaves, and so on and so forth, but quite another to fit these innovations together to form complex systems. In the context of the SPT conference, the overarching theme of which is “The Grammar of Things”, the following questions are thus of particular interest:
• The grammar of biomimicry. In order to be sustainable biomimetic innovation will need to go beyond the imitation of isolated natural models, in order to consider the structural rules and principles that govern their articulation into complex sustainable systems. To adapt an expression of Braungart and McDonough (2009), it is not enough just to imagine “buildings like trees”, for one must also imagine “cities like forests”. But can the workings of ecosystems provide the basic “logic” or “grammar” that would allow us to articulate biomimetic technologies with one another? And what would be the role and the place of humans in the emergence and continued existence of complex artificial systems modeled on Nature (e.g., biomimetic cities, biomimetic economies)?
• Nature as engineer. Engineers working in biomimicry and related fields have placed great hopes in including Nature’s “technologies” in the problem-solving tool TRIZ, thus giving rise to “Bio-TRIZ”, which would contain all known “engineering solutions” deployed by life on earth (Vincent 2002, 2006; Bogatyrev & Bogatyrev 2009). But while Bio-TRIZ may help “regularize” the transfer of function between natural and artificial technologies, can it help us connect all these technologies together? And are there not philosophical problems involved in reducing Nature to little more than a database of isolated “engineering solutions”? Do we not need to see Nature as Nature, rather than as technology (Dicks 2016, Blok 2016)?
• The concept of mimesis. Scientists and philosophers frequently invoke and discuss various poetic and linguistic concepts – mimesis, interpretation, translation, inspiration, analogy, metaphor, etc. – when discussing the transfer between natural model and technological imitation. Can we productively transpose philosophical analyses of these and other relevant concepts from the spheres of linguistics and poetics to the interface between the natural sciences and technology? And how might these concepts inform the “grammar” of biomimicry?
• The diversity of mimesis. Bensaude-Vincent (2011) has argued that the current rise of biomimicry is accompanied by the counter movement of “technomimicry”, whereby living beings or systems are engineered in order to behave more like technological systems, as is the case in synthetic biology. And Dicks (2016a, 2016b) has argued that prior to the emergence of biomimicry, which sees Nature as “model, measure, and mentor” (Benyus 1997), humanists saw Man as “model, measure, and mentor”, a position he describes as “anthropomimicry”. But how do all these different forms of mimicry relate to each other – historically, conceptually, ethically... – and can biomimicry be seen as a new paradigm for technological innovation or is it just one type of mimicry amongst others?
Given the emerging importance of biomimicry but also the relative lack of critical attention currently paid to the concept, this conference track aims above all to deepen our understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of biomimicry, understood as nature-based technology. We therefore encourage submission of papers that tackle a broad range of questions, including (but not limited to) the aforementioned areas of special interest. For more information about the content and focus of the track, please contact the track chairs, Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl) and Henry Dicks (henryjdicks@gmail.com).
References
Benyus, J. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Harper Perennial.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. et al. (2002). Chemists and the School of nature. New Journal of Chemistry 29: 1-5
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2011). A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics. In Marko Cavrak (Ed.), Advances in Biomimetics, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/10546. Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-biomimetics/a-cultural-perspective-on-biomimetics
Blok, V., Gremmen, B. (2016). Ecological Innovation: Biomimicry as a New Way of Thinking and Acting Ecologically. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29 (2): 203-217.
Blok, V., (2016). Biomimicry and the materiality of ecological technology and innovation: Toward a natural model of nature. Environmental Philosophy (forthcoming)
Braungart, M. and McDonough, W. (2009). Cradle to Cradle: Re-Making the Way we Make Things. London: Vintage.
Despommier, D. (2011). The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century. New York: Picador.
Dicks, H. (2016a). The Philosophy of Biomimicry, Philosophy and Technology 29 (3): 223-243.
Dicks, H. (2016b). From Anthropomimetic to Biomimetic Cities: The Place of the Human in Cities like Forests. Paper at the 3rd Conference of the International Society for the Philosophy of Architecture, Bamberg, Germany, 19-23 July 2016. Available at: https://université-lyon3.academia.edu/HenryDicks
Kennedy, E., et al. (2015). Biomimicry: A Path to Sustainable Innovation. Design Issues 31 (3): 66-73.
Mathews, F. (2011). Towards a deeper philosophy of biomimicry. Organization & Environment, 24(4): 364-387.
Pawlyn, M. (2011). Biomimicry in Architecture, London: RIBA.
Rawlings, A. et al. (2012). Innovation through Imitation: Biomimetic, Bioinspired and Biokleptic Research. Soft Matter 8 (25): 2675-2679.
Vincent, J. et al. (2002). Systematic Technology Transfer from Biology to Engineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 360 (1791): 159-73.
Vincent, J. et al. (2006). Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J. R. Soc. Interface, 3 (9): 471-482
TO CONTRIBUTE...
350-word abstracts for individual papers should be submitted by Dec 5 at https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=spt2017. When submitting, please tick the option "Special Track: Biomimicry (V. Blok, H. Dicks)". For more information about the conference, please visit:
http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/spt2017/spt2017_pwt/call_for_papers/callforpapers.de.jsp
Timetable
• December 5th 2016: Deadline for the submission of abstracts
• March 1, 2017: Expected notification of acceptance
• June 14-17, 2017: Conference dates
bio-economy as the cornerstone to cleaner production and more sustainable consumption patterns for accelerating the transition towards equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbon societies
Editors:
Carlo Ingrao*, Jacopo Bacenetti, Alberto Bezama, Vincent Blok, Jutta Geldermann, Pietro Goglio, Emmanuel G. Koukios, Marcus Lindner, Thomas Nemecek, Valentina Siracusa, Anastasia Zabaniotou, Donald Huisingh
Because one of my post-doc researchers found a permanent job as assistant professor in the Netherlands, I am looking for a new ambitious and top Post-doc researcher who can strengthen our research in the field of responsible innovation. I am looking for a post-doc researcher in responsible innovation in industry for a large EU project called “Excellence in science and innovation for Europe by adopting the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (NewHoRRIzon)”, in which we play a central role together with several European top research institutes. Can you please help me to find good candidates and forward this message, and/or if you yourself are interested in the position, please have a look at the job description in the link. If you have any questions after reading the job description, please feel free to contact me via email (vincent.blok@wur.nl). Via the link you can also apply for the job.
https://www.wur.nl/en/Jobs/Vacancies/Show/Postdoctoral-Researcher-Responsible-Innovation-in-Industry-2.htm
Organizating University
Wageningen University – Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl)
Delft University of Technology – Ibo van der Poel (I.R.vandePoel@tudelft.nl)
About the topic
This course discusses the main philosophical issues in relation to Responsible Innovation, an emerging concept in the EU context which highlights the relevance of social-ethical issues in research and innovation practices. This emerging concept calls for philosophical reflection on the nature, scope and applicability of responsibility and innovation in innovation practices in general, and the way social-ethical issues can be applied and addressed in specific fields like business, healthcare and energy in particular. Topics that will be covered include the nature of responsibility in responsible innovation, the role of societal values in innovation and value sensitive design, philosophical reflections on the role of knowledge and risk in innovation, constructive technology assessment and governance of responsible innovation, Responsible Innovation in the public sector (healthcare), responsible innovation in the private sector.
Students get to know some of the main positions in relation to philosophical issues in responsible innovation, the main arguments in the relevant debates and insight in the dilemma’s which appear in the practical application of responsible innovation in the public and private sector. Although the focus is on the philosophical and ethical issues raised by responsible innovation, we will also touch upon some more fundamental philosophical issues raised by responsible innovation. This includes issues like:
• The nature of responsibility in light of the unpredictability of the future impact of innovations
• The philosophical assumptions of the innovation paradigm
• The way (responsible) innovations affect experience and praxis
• Value incommensurability, value pluralism and the trade-offs between values in responsible innovation
Aim / objective
To become acquainted with the main philosophical issues in relation to Responsible Innovation.
Target group
PhD students (alfa, gamma, beta) who start their research in the field of Responsible Research and Innovation, and PhD students in philosophy who want to learn more about philosophical and ethical reflection in the field of science and technology development. Students from universities outside The Netherlands are encouraged to subscribe for the course as well.
Program
Week 1 (Delft)
• Day 1 (9 January 2019): Introduction to Responsible Research and Innovation (Swierstra & Boenink)
• Day 2 (10 January 2019): Conceptions of Responsibility in Relation to RRI (vd Poel & Blok)
• Day 3 (11 January 2019): Value Sensitive Design (vd Hoven & vd Poel)
Week 2 (Wageningen)
• Day 4 (14 January 2019): AIRR Framework and RRI in Health Care (MacNaghten & vd Burg)
• Day 5 (15 January 2019): Constructive Technology Assessment and RRI in industry (Rip & Blok)
• Day 6 (16 January 2019): Postphenomenological analysis of RRI & Stakeholder Engagement (Verbeek & Cuppen)
• Day 7 (18 January 2019): Final Presentatioins (Blok & vd Poel)
Lecturers
• Prof. dr. Tsjalling Swierstra, Maastricht University (day 1)
• Dr. Marianne Boenink, Twente University (day 1)
• Dr. Vincent Blok, Wageningen University (day 2, 5 and 7)
• Prof. dr. ir. Ibo van de Poel, Technical University Delft (day 2, 3 and 7)
• Dr. Simone van der Burg, Wageningen University (day 4)
• Prof. dr. Arie Rip, Emeritus Twente University (day 5)
• Prof. dr. Jeroen van den Hoven, Technical University Delft (day 3)
• Prof. dr. Phil MacNaghten, Wageningen University (day 4)
• Dr. Eefje Cuppen, Technical University Delft (day 6)
• Prof. Peter-Paul Verbeek, Twente University (day 6)
Required preparations
The participants are expected to read all the assigned literature, to do assignments and to actively participate in the discussions. They also have to give a final presentation (more information about the assignment will be provided during the first lecture)
Certificate / credit points
Study load is the equivalent of 5 EC.
Attendance
It is obligatory to attend all sessions of the course.