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, care ethics, dignitarian ethics, rights-based moralities etc. Given the diffusion in the RRI literature of references to care ethics and its justification of participation and responsibility, I will compare the conceptual premises of this philosophical line with those of ethics of rights, which have been criticised by advocates of care ethics. I will argue that public engagement based on only needs cannot lead to responsible outcomes since it produces however the exclusion of some needs, covered instead by rights. In order for participation to be effective, rights or an alliance between the two perspectives is required.

中文翻译：

---

不可避免的框架：关怀伦理、权利伦理和负责任的研究与创新模式

尽管得到了欧盟的认可，但到目前为止，负责任的研究与创新 (RRI) 的定义、特征和概念核心：创新和责任得到了讨论。这种概念上的不确定性是政治层面分歧的根源，导致在同一治理模式下产生多种结果和版本。根据查尔斯·泰勒的建议，RRI 模型的这种概念性开放可以通过多元、冲突的道德框架的存在来解释：话语伦理、亚里士多德伦理、关怀伦理、尊严伦理、基于权利的道德等。 鉴于 RRI 中的扩散参考护理伦理及其参与和责任的理由的文献，我将把这条哲学路线的概念前提与权利伦理的概念前提进行比较，这遭到了护理伦理倡导者的批评。我将争辩说，仅基于需求的公众参与不能导致负责任的结果，因为它会排除某些需求，而代之以权利。为了使参与有效，需要权利或两种观点之间的联盟。