과학기술 혁신의 윤리적 책임과 사회적 영향 평가: 미국 국립과학재단 BIC 및 유럽연합 RRI 사례연구 = Social Impact Evaluation and Ethics of Scientific and Technological Innovation: A Case Study of the NSF’s BIC and the EC’s RRI

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Traditionally, public support for science and technology innovation is justified based on an evidence-based policy-making (EBP) paradigm. Evidence-based impact assessment (EBIA) refers to impact assessments performed as a part of EBP. Preliminary evaluation is a representative EBIA practice , conducted mainly in the form of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) from an economic analysis perspective. However, the United States and Europe in particular have pursued recent efforts to overcome the limitations of EBP and EBIA and to strengthen the basis for public support and social responsibility of science and technology. The US’s National Science Foundation and the EU's European Commission evaluate social and ethical aspects of science and technology based on the Broader Impacts Criterion (BIC) and the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) paradigm, respectively.
This study conducts case studies of the NSF’s BIC and the EC’s RRI and introduces the global trend of executing social impact assessment to strengthen public support for science and technology.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

전통적으로 과학기술 혁신에 대한 공적지원은 증거기반정책결정(Evidence-Based Policy- making, EBP)이나 증거기반 국정운영 패러다임에 입각하여 수행되고 있다. 증거기반영향평가(Evidence-Based Impact Assessment, EBIA)는 EBP의 일환으로 수행되는 영향평가를 지칭한다. EBIA에 속하는 대표적 관행으로 예비조사가 있으며, 예비조사 역시 EBP에 입각하여 주로 경제적 분석 관점에서 비용편익분석(Benefit-Cost Analysis, BCA)의 형태로 수행된다. 최근의 흐름으로 미국이나 유럽을 중심으로 EBP나 EBIA의 한계를 극복하고 과학기술의 공적지원 근거와 사회적 책임성을 강화하려는 움직임이 지속적으로 진행되고 있다. 미국 NSF나 유럽연합의 EC는 과학기술에 대한 공적지원 기준으로 각각 광의의 영향 지표(Broader Impact Criterion, BIC)와 책임연구 및 혁신(Responsible Research and Innovation, RRI) 패러다임에 입각하여 과학기술의 사회적, 윤리적 측면을 평가에 고려하고 있다.
이 연구는 미국 NSF의 BIC와 EU EC의 국제 공동연구 프로그램인 Framework Programme의 RRI에 관한 사례연구를 통해서 과학기술에 대한 공적지원 기준의 적용 내지 집행 과정에서 사회적 영향 평가의 흐름을 소개한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이영희, "한국 과학기술사회학 연구의 동향과 과제" 비판사회학회 (100) : 251-272, 2013

2 송위진 ; 성지은, "사회문제 해결형 혁신과 사회-기술기획: 현황과 과제" 한국과학기술학회 13 (13): 111-136, 2013

3 송위진, "사회문제 해결형 과학기술혁신을 보는세 가지 관점" 한국과학기술학회 18 (18): 233-267, 2018

4 이승규, "국민 삶의 질 향상과 사회문제 해결을 위한 과학기술혁신역량 변화방향 제언" 985-1014, 2018

5 성지은, "교육과 과학기술 기능 통합 국가의 과학기술행정체제 비교 분석: 일본, 독일, 영국을 중심으로" 한국행정연구소 47 (47): 375-404, 2009

6 김미나, "과학기술행정의 시스템 전환 및 컨텍스트의 변화 - 과학기술부의 역사적 형성과정을 중심으로-" 한국행정연구소 43 (43): 97-130, 2005

7 오영균, "과학기술출연(연) 기관평가수용성 영향요인에 관한 연구" 한국행정연구소 53 (53): 151-170, 2015

8 권기석 ; 정서화 ; 이찬구, "과학기술정책 연구와 사회, 정부 : 과학기술의 사회이슈, 정부정책, 학술연구의 공진화 분석" 한국기술혁신학회 21 (21): 64-91, 2018

9 김환석, "과학기술과 사회(STS) 연구의 동향과 전망" 사회과학연구소 26 (26): 17-43, 2014

10 Walker, R., "What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services" Policy Press 2000

11 Dworkin, R., "What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare" 185-246, 1981

12 Glover, J., "Utilitarianism and its critics" Macmillan 1990

13 Von Schomberg, Rene, "Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Field" European Union 2011

14 Flipse, S. M., "The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development" 19 (19): 703-725, 2013

15 Holbrook, J. B., "The use of societal impacts considerations in grant proposal peer review: A comparison of five models" 12 (12): 213-224, 2010

16 Schienke, E. W., "The role of the National Science Foundation broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy" 23 (23): 317-336, 2009

17 Parkhurst, Justin, "The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence . Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy" Routledge 2017

18 Barben, D., "The handbook of science and technology studies" MIT Press 979-1000, 2008

19 Plewis, "Tackling inequalities: where are we now and what can be done" Policy Press 2000

20 Bozeman, B., "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research : lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives" 46 (46): 1387-1398, 2017

21 Groves, C., "Shaping emerging technologies: Governance, innovation, discourse" 185-202, 2013

22 Frodeman, R., "Science’s social effects" 23 (23): 28-30, 2007

23 Owen, R., "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society" 39 (39): 751-760, 2012

24 Von Schomberg, R., "Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society" 51-74, 2013

25 Pellizzoni, L., "Responsibility and environmental governance" 13 (13): 541-565, 2004

26 Guston, D. H., "Real-time technology assessment" 24 (24): 93-109, 2002

27 Holbrook, J. B., "Re-assessing the science – society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s broader impacts merit review criterion (1997 – 2011)"

28 O’Sullivan, N., "Political integration, the limited state, and the philosophy of postmodernism" 41 : 21-42, 1993

29 Adelle, C., "Policy assessment : the state of the art" 30 (30): 25-33, 2012

30 Holbrook, J. B., "Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts" 20 (20): 239-246, 2011

31 OECD, "Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1995. Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on improving the quality of government regulation"

32 European Commission, "Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation"

33 Grunwald, S., "Multi-criteria characterization of recent digital soil mapping and modeling approaches" 152 (152): 195-207, 2009

34 Stirling, A., "Keep it complex" 468 : 1029-1031, 2010

35 Forsberg, E., "Issues and opinions : Assessment of science and technologies : Advising for and with responsibility" 42 : 21-27, 2015

36 Frodeman, R., "Intellectual merit and broader impact: The National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion and the question of peer review" 23 (23): 337-345, 2009

37 Roco, M. C., "Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development" 13 (13): 3557-3590, 2011

38 European Commission, "Impact Assessment guidance. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, SEC (2009) 92"

39 Jasanoff, S., "Handbook of science and technology studies" Sage publications 2001

40 Karinen, R., "Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime" Springer 217-232, 2010

41 Sanderson, I., "Evaluation, policy learning and evidence ‐ based policy making" 80 (80): 1-22, 2002

42 Levidow, L., "EU research agendas: Embedding what future?" 23 (23): 397-412, 2014

43 Dryzek, J.S., "Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political science" Cambridge University Press 1990

44 Stilgoe, J., "Developing a framework for responsible innovation" 42 : 1568-1580, 2013

45 Burget, M., "Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation : A literature review" 23 (23): 1-19, 2017

46 European Commission, "Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment. (COM (2002) 276)"

47 Robinson, D. K., "Co-evolutionary scenarios : An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology" 76 : 1222-1239, 2009

48 Bozeman, B., "Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts" 23 (23): 183-198, 2009

49 Zwart, H., "Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’to ‘RRI’" 10 (10): 1-19, 2014

50 Sutcliffe, H., "A report on responsible research and innovation" MATTER and the European Commission 2011

51 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, "A new horizon for Europe : impact assessment of the 9th EU framework programme for research and innovation" Publications Office

52 송위진 ; 성지은, "'전환적 혁신정책'의 관점에서 본 사회문제 해결형 R&D정책: '제2차 과학기술기반 사회문제 해결 종합계획'을 중심으로" 한국과학기술학회 19 (19): 85-116, 2019

53 Davis, M., ""Broader impacts"or"responsible research and innovation"? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering" 20 (20): 963-983, 2014