Situating the social sciences in responsible innovation in the global south: the case of gene drive mosquitoes

Abstract

There has been growing attention in recent years on the potential reconfiguration of responsible innovation (RI) to increase its relevance for global challenges in the Global South. This reconfiguration will require a broad and empowered role for social scientists. Yet RI has been preoccupied with public and stakeholder inclusion, rather than social science inclusion. We probe this gap through a case study of the social sciences in the development of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control in Mali and Uganda. Our data reveals potential diverse roles and future research agendas for the social sciences. We outline some challenges facing the social sciences in this space and ways to promote and support them. Lastly, we argue that RI’s predilection for reflexive and critical social science obscures a richer repertoire of social science roles that are an imperative and fundamental part of efforts to address global challenges in the Global South.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Situating the social sciences in responsible innovation in the
global south: the case of gene drive mosquitoes
Katie Ledingham
a
, Chris Opesen
b
, Sarah Hartley
a
and Stella Neema
b
a
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK;
b
Department of Sociology
and Anthropology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
ABSTRACT
There has been growing attention in recent years on the potential
reconfiguration of responsible innovation (RI) to increase its
relevance for global challenges in the Global South. This
reconfiguration will require a broad and empowered role for
social scientists. Yet RI has been preoccupied with public and
stakeholder inclusion, rather than social science inclusion. We
probe this gap through a case study of the social sciences in the
development of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control in Mali
and Uganda. Our data reveals potential diverse roles and future
research agendas for the social sciences. We outline some
challenges facing the social sciences in this space and ways to
promote and support them. Lastly, we argue that RI’s predilection
for reflexive and critical social science obscures a richer repertoire
of social science roles that are an imperative and fundamental
part of efforts to address global challenges in the Global South.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 30 January 2023
Accepted 25 September
2023
KEYWORDS
Responsible innovation;
global south; gene drive;
social sciences; Mali; Uganda
The social sciences and responsible innovation in the global south
In 2020, the World Health Organisation announced 13 urgent and interlinked global
health challenges for the decade ahead (WHO 2021). These include climate change,
the spread of infectious diseases and the delivery of health under conditions of conflict
and crisis. Such global health challenges disproportionately affect low and middle-
income countries in the Global South (Chu et al. 2014; Lambert et al. 2020). Following
the Lund Declaration of 2009 and high-profile support from the European Commission,
responsible innovation (RI) has come to be recognised as a prominent innovation dis-
course focused on the collective stewardship or steering of innovation trajectories to
address pressing societal challenges in ways that are aligned with societal values.
Despite the predominance of societal challenges in the Global South, RI has continued
to exhibit a Northern-centrism with case studies and theory building drawing predomi-
nantly on examples from the Global North. This misalignment has led to increasing calls
for a more ‘inclusive’RI framework, one that is attuned to the question of how RI might
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
CONTACT Katie Ledingham k.a.ledingham@exeter.ac.uk
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION
2023, VOL. 10, NO. 1, 2264100
https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2264100

work in specific political, social, economic and structural contexts in the Global South,
and one in which the very process of theory building for RI is made more robust
through learning from innovation orientations, processes, insights and practices taking
place in different parts of the world. Recent studies have subsequently sought to
examine RI in the Global South (de Campos et al. 2017; de Hoop, Pols, and Romijn
2016; Hartley et al. 2019; Macnaghten et al. 2014; Pandey et al. 2020; Wakunuma et al.
2021), compare RI in Global North and South contexts and consider how RI might
work effectively in the Global South (Hartley et al. 2019; Vasen 2017; Wakunuma
et al. 2021). Others have explored the value of experiences with RI in the Global South
for theory development (Pandey et al. 2020; Valkenburg 2020), pointing to the impor-
tance of avoiding assumptions about knowledge, power and development. As Mac-
naghten et al. (2014, 193) argue:
RI in its Northern constitution has a normative basis that advocates for a ‘different socio-
technical order to be’, one that ‘hints at a more inclusive, democratic and equitable
science –society relationship’(van Oudheusden 2014, 72). But from a Southern perspective
(notwithstanding the large heterogeneity that characterizes its countries, regions, municipa-
lities and institutions) Northern assumptions of what that socio-technical order and those
science –society relationships are (or should be) are at best naïve.
In this paper we respond to these calls and critiques, examining the positioning of the
social sciences, as defined by actors in the Global South, within the context of an inno-
vation assemblage intended to address a pressing global health challenge in sub –Saharan
Africa –gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control. Chief Executive of the British
Academy, Hetan Shah (2020, 295), recently argued that without engaging social
science expertise, governments will ‘fail to tackle the challenges of this decade.’The
social sciences can redefine problems, interrogate assumptions, open up new questions,
provide critical thinking, help to understand processes, and work towards more equitable
and sustainable innovation futures. This notion of ‘opening up’is a fundamental tenet of
RI practice and in related cases of biotechnology and nanotechnology in the Global
North, social scientists have demonstrated that what matters to publics are not simply
the risks associated with these innovations, but creating space to both address and negotiate
more fundamental questions such as who owns it, who benefits from it and to what ends
will it be directed (Hartley et al. 2021; Marris 2015;Sarewitz2015; Wilsdon and Willis
2004). Social science contributions have also been integral in understanding why and
how innovations (such as diagnostic tests for related and pressing societal challenges
such as antimicrobial resistance) can generate unintended consequences and on a practical
level how publics can be brought together in ways that are culturally relevant and cognisant
of specific power relations and dynamics (de Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016).
In spite of the value of the social sciences in helping to ‘open up’innovation trajec-
tories and pathways, Koch (2020) and Valkenburg et al. (2020) emphasise that RI has
too often been preoccupied with the inclusion of communities, stakeholders, and
publics, rather than looking at epistemic inclusion with regards to the structures of
science itself including the social sciences. RI’s predominant focus on the inclusion of
publics and stakeholders, can marginalise social science scholars and exclude them
from participating in knowledge production (Koch 2020). In the Global North, research
suggests that social scientists are often channelled into a ‘handmaiden’role in
2K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

collaborative spaces of biotechnology development, designed to facilitate the scientificor
technological innovation in hand (Balmer et al. 2015). Other research shows how the
natural sciences dominate global debates about emerging technology with little input
from the social sciences (de Graeffet al. 2019). There has, to date, been little empirically
informed delineation or agenda setting surrounding the role of the social sciences in
innovation assemblages in the Global South. Amidst the recognition that RI predomi-
nantly speaks to European priorities, values and concerns (Macnaghten et al. 2014; Valk-
enburg 2020), there are growing calls to critically consider the ‘transduction’of RI from
Europe and North America to the Global South (Doezema et al. 2019). Transduction is
positioned not as the imposition of European norms, but as a generative space of encoun-
ter where engagement with the questions RI inspires in non-European spaces may shape
future innovation practices and institutional arrangements (Doezema et al. 2019).
Global South scholars are heavily marginalised in knowledge production (Mouton
2010). Yet, we know that such scholars are essential for addressing the region’s develop-
ment challenges (Owusu, Kalipeni, and Kiiru 2014), particularly with regard to inno-
vations that are sustainable, novel, appropriate and can generate ownership within the
region. Too often, natural scientists from the Global North define social science contri-
butions in the Global South in terms of delivering community acceptance of innovation
through public engagement. For example, the Entomological Society of America (ESA
2020, 487) states, ‘It is the responsibility of scientists to ensure communities are consulted
by trained professionals (i.e. social scientists) about [gene drive technology] for specific
applications. Community engagement early and often should make [gene drive technology]
development a team effort between natural and social scientists working together with local
communities.’However, the reconfiguration of RI needed for addressing global chal-
lenges in the Global South, will require a richer, broader, and more empowered role
for social scientists and RI’s focus on inclusion suggests Global South scholars should
be involved in these efforts.
We examine this requirement through the case of gene drive mosquitoes in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The first field trials of gene drive mosquitoes are likely to take place in
about 5 years in Uganda, Mali or Burkina Faso and the gene drive community is com-
mitted to the responsible development, testing and governance of gene drive (AUDA
and NEPAD 2018; Hartley et al. 2019; James and Tountas 2018; Ledingham and
Hartley 2021; Long et al. 2020). The technology has high level political support, with
the African Union’s High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies identifying gene
drive mosquitoes as a priority technology for malaria elimination (AU and NEPAD
2018). Ugandan scientists and stakeholders hope that gene drive mosquitoes may
reduce the huge burden of malaria (Hartley et al. 2021). Powerful calls have been
made from within Africa for equitable research collaborations and partnerships to
shape gene drive research and its governance, with African actors, including social scien-
tists, arguing that African voices must become more part of the conversation (Kamwi
2016; Pare Toe 2021). For example, Pare Toe (2021) shows how social scientists can
explain societal responses to technology through understanding political, economic or
cultural issues and facilitate co-development of gene drive mosquitoes, evidencing how
stakeholder knowledge about potential risks contributed to the technology’s develop-
ment and garnered support for evidence-based scientific solutions to malaria control.
Despite such examples, there has been little examination of the role of the African
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 3

social sciences, with significant assumptions about their role as community engagement
practitioners.
To address this gap, we explore the role of the social sciences in the case of gene drive
mosquitoes, their potential for the responsible development of a technological solution to
a global challenge, and what this means for the ongoing reconfiguration of RI. We
examine how stakeholders in Mali and Uganda perceive the potential contribution of
the social sciences to the development, testing and governance of gene drive mosquitoes,
and how social scientists and stakeholders in Uganda might define a social science
research agenda for gene drive technology. We conducted secondary data analysis on
interviews held in Mali and Uganda in 2018 and 2019 and held an exploratory workshop
in Uganda in 2021, designed and led by social scientists at Makerere University (CO and
SN), to explore the opportunities and challenges facing social science input into gene
drive governance. Importantly, this is the first time an agenda for gene drive governance
has been defined by social scientists in an African country where gene drives are likely to
be trialled.
We find that RI’s theoretical predilection in the Global North for critical social science,
obscures the nuances and diversity of the roles to be assumed by social science in sup-
porting robust and responsible innovation responses to pressing challenges as defined
by actors in the Global South. We argue not simply for ‘more’social science but for
more critical and granular thought into the positioning of social science contributions
in collaborative innovation spaces if they are to meaningfully contribute to global
health challenges involving emerging technologies. Social scientists face numerous struc-
tural hurdles to involvement, yet without their involvement, RI will be another colonial
structure defined elsewhere.
Methods
We conducted secondary data analysis, drawing on interviews conducted in both
countries in 2018–2019 and a workshop held in Uganda in 2021. Our data set comprises
35 interview transcripts and a workshop report. The methods for collecting the interview
data are described in two previous publications on gene drive governance in Mali and
Uganda (Hartley et al. 2021a; Hartley et al. 2021b). The first set of transcripts consist
of 16 semi-structured interviews conducted in Mali in 2018 with Target Malaria
natural scientists including molecular biologist and entomologist specialists (M1, M5,
M6, M9, M16), independent natural scientists (M10, M11), social scientist engagement
experts (M2, M3, M4, M8, M15), independent ethics experts (M7, M14), a regulator
(M13) and community representative (M12) (ethics approval provided by the University
of Exeter Business School eUEBNS001032). These interviews were conducted in French
and subsequently transcribed and translated into English. They explored understandings
and experiences of co-development –a specific form of co-production accompanying the
development of gene drive technology which has appeared in high-level governance
documents and the overarching strategy documents of the Target Malaria Consortium
(Hartley et al. 2021a). The second set of transcripts consisted of 19 semi-structured inter-
views in Uganda with Target Malaria natural scientists (U1, U3, U4, U18), independent
natural scientists across the domains of biotechnology, health and veterinary sciences,
environment and entomology (U6, U7, U19, U11, U12, U13, U15), a social science
4K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

engagement specialist (U2), independent legal expert (U10), regulators including impact
assessment and regulation experts (U5, U9, U14, U16) and community representatives
(U8, U17). CO conducted the interviews in 2019 and explored participants’hopes and
concerns associated with the development of gene drive mosquitoes, as well as who
should be involved in the risk assessment process and identification of harms (Hartley
et al. 2021b) (ethics approval provided by the Uganda National Council for Science
and Technology SS5059 and Makerere University Social Sciences Research and Ethics
Committee MAKSS REC 05.19.300).
The workshop methods can be found in the workshop report (Opesen 2021). CO and
SN, social scientists based at Makerere University in Uganda, designed and hosted the
hybrid (physical and virtual) workshop in May 2021 at the Kampala Kolping Hotel
entitled ‘A Social Science Agenda for Gene Drive Research’. Participants included
social scientists from Makerere University and Gulu University in Uganda, members
of Target Malaria Uganda, regulators from the Uganda National Council of Science
and Technology, the National Bio-safety Committee, district local governments and
Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE), an independent
public policy research and advocacy Think Tank. SH participated online. The workshop
sought to better understand the challenges facing both malaria control and the develop-
ment of gene drive as a potential tool to address it. The workshop’s goal was to develop an
agenda for social science research on gene drive governance in Uganda. Data analysis
proceeded thematically (Braun and Clarke 2019) and inductive coding was undertaken
collaboratively by KL and CO. Emergent themes were organised by: (a) mapping the
social context or milieu within which gene drive research and development is taking
place in Mali and Uganda; (b) the role of the social sciences in gene drive in Mali and
Uganda; and, (c) social science agendas for gene drive as defined by Ugandan social
scientists and stakeholders. Themes and arguments were discussed in conjunction
with the whole authorship team.
Social sciences in responsible gene drive governance in Mali and Uganda
Mali and Uganda carry a high share of the global malaria burden (WHO 2021). Malaria is
the leading cause of death in these countries and continues to exert a devastating impact
on communities and local economies (WHO 2021). It is both a driver and manifestation
of poverty and inequality (Bardosh 2014). Efforts to prevent malaria transmission include
residual spraying with insecticide and the distribution of long-lasting insecticide treated
bed nets. Management efforts are thwarted by the development of insecticide resistance
and institutional reaffirmations to eliminate malaria have contributed to interest in the
development of new innovative solutions to tackling this pressing challenge issue. It is
within this context that Target Malaria, a large international research consortium with
funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Open Philan-
thropy Project, is developing gene drive technology to be used on the Anopheles
gambiae mosquito as a tool of malaria control and/or elimination.
Target Malaria is modifying the genome of the mosquito through two strategies: redu-
cing female fertility and ‘sex-biasing’where all offspring will be males. These modifi-
cations are accompanied by a genetic drive mechanism, meaning that there is an up to
99% chance that the genetic modification will be passed on to all offspring. Malian
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 5

and Ugandan natural scientists from the Ugandan Virus Research Institute (Uganda) and
the Malaria Research and Training Center at the Université des Sciences, des Techniques
et des Technologies de Bamako (Mali) are part of Target Malaria and active in the tech-
nology’s development and preparatory activities for the possible field trial of gene drive
mosquitoes. Gene drive technology is intended to persist and perpetuate in the environ-
ment, and work is also underway to assess potential social and ecological impacts. No
gene drive organisms have yet been released in the wild and the release of these mosqui-
toes in Uganda, Mali and/or Burkina Faso is expected to be the world’sfirst.
Although a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, Uganda has no specific legislation capable of regulating gene
drive mosquitoes. The government has drafted a Genetic Engineering Regulatory Bill
(2019) that will cover gene drive organisms. However, the Bill is contentious and Presi-
dent Museveni has twice returned the Bill to Parliament citing concerns about safeguard-
ing citizens and ecosystems (Museveni 2019). When Target Malaria is ready for field
trials, it will likely need approval first from the National Environmental Management
Authority (NEMA) and then by the Uganda Virus Research Institute Biosafety Commit-
tee, National Biosafety Committee (NBC) at the Ugandan National Council for Science
and Technology (UNCST) and the National Bio-Ethics Committee at the Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation. This approval process will be managed by the com-
petent authority which is likely to be UNCST. Until the Bill is passed into law, gene drive
mosquito field trails cannot progress to open field release.
Global North philanthropists are powerful actors in Mali and Uganda, providing sig-
nificant amounts of funding to build harmonised legislative and regulatory frameworks
across sub-Saharan Africa and ensure that existing institutions, stakeholders, and com-
munities accept and deploy gene drive mosquitoes (Hartley, Kokotovich, and McCalman
2022). For example, both the BMGF and Open Philanthropy Project have provided
millions of US dollars to public relations firms and development agencies to support
the evaluation, preparation, and potential deployment of gene drive technologies
(BMGF 2020; Open Philanthropy 2020). These investments dovetail into the broader
regional context where the African Union views science and technology as a cornerstone
of Africa’s much-needed socio-economic transformation (AUDA-NEPAD 2020).
Section 3.1 outlines the case of gene drive mosquitoes and the social dynamics that
intersect with the technology’s development in Mali and Uganda, highlighting key
themes emerging from the data. These social dynamics demonstrate the need for
diverse and broad social science research. Section 3.2 presents four dominant existing
roles the social sciences play in this case and Section 3.3 outlines the future research
agenda identified by Ugandan social scientists, reflecting the social dynamics of the
case, and expanding the existing roles for the social sciences in gene drive technology
development.
The social dynamics of gene drive and the need for social science research
The data highlights a broad range of issues participants identified that are ripe for social
science investigation. These issues sit in the broader social context or dynamics of gene
drive technology development. All participants identified malaria as a pressing global
challenge and many of them raised concerns about potential social scepticism towards
6K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

gene drive technology. Indeed, Hartley et al. (2021) found Ugandan stakeholders had a
strong desire for gene drive mosquitoes to work and saw a lack of public and political
support as a significant risk. Our respondents stressed, for example, that ‘people can
be sceptical of new technology’(M1-3). This was perceived to be exacerbated by prior
experiences such as ‘colonial bombardments of DDT where no one was given the
right to ask why this was happening’(M7). These experiences were described as a
‘reason not to want biotech’(U4), and that without appropriate community involvement,
community members ‘may think we want to poison them or spread new illnesses’(M7).
Interviewees voiced concerns surrounding the importation of mosquitoes: ‘they may
think we are going to import Malaysian mosquitoes and cause another plague’(M7),
with scepticism amplified by the perceived experimental nature of the technology. Inter-
viewee M9 stressed that ‘I would prefer these things do not start directly in Mali because we
do not yet know the contours. It’s an experimental research.’Interviewee U6 relatedly
posited, ‘are we some kind of guinea pigs?’There was a sense that ‘even among scientists,
not many scientists know it’(U18) and that ‘people feel that maybe the research is being
imposed on a country without sufficient time to understand the benefits’(U16). Connec-
tions were made to BT cotton, with U10 emphasising ‘there’s a lot of scepticism [surround-
ing] these GMOs to deliver the promises they say, the commercialised results are not as
good as claimed.’M13 similarly described how ‘after a few years of using BT cotton,
[people] began to notice a reduction in the size of cotton bolls and eventually that overtook
GM BT.’There was a clear sense that unless the technology is robustly adapted to the
African context, ‘it will be like other technologies which were imported, which came to
us form overseas, which cause problems after they arrived’(M13). U10 remarked how
‘there are other African countries that have eradicated malaria without the need for tech-
nofixes …we need to learn from them and extrapolate lessons’(U10) and participants ques-
tioned whether the ‘benefit especially commercially will necessarily be shared fairly’(U16).
As well as being accompanied by a strong sense of social scepticism, it also became
clear through our interviews that gene drive technology is being developed in Mali and
Uganda amidst challenging structural realities.Respondents described difficulties of
building legislation and regulations under conditions where governments are in flux.
M13 emphasised that ‘every time I tried to introduce the decree the ministers change
three times, there hasn’t been a government that has stayed the same for more than
6 months.’M7 relatedly stressed that we must ‘establish teams of people which last.’
For M9, ‘it’s not the building or institutions that are lacking it’s the people who are
changing a lot.’Lack of ‘adequate regulation and policy to regulate these technologies’
was identified by participants (U7, U10) as a key challenge. ‘Brain drain’was relatedly
described as a phenomenon where scientists and innovators move to places where legis-
lation is in place. While there was an acknowledgement that in-country expertise does
exist, one participant stated that ‘what we don’t have is actual working regimes’(U15).
Regarding the technical dimensions of the technology, U10 stressed that ‘I think first we
need to understand first generation technologies before gene drives.’U16 similarly
stated that ‘we have not been sufficient in education and awareness creation so a lot
of biotech knowledge is at low levels.’Biotech was described by M5 as being ‘far
from understood by people’and confused with biopharma. Respondents emphasised
that ‘many people don’t know the malaria life cycle’and that ‘some people think
malaria comes from milk or mangoes (M9).’Challenges of illiteracy were raised and
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 7

M16 described how ‘one of the problems is people just don’t have the correct infor-
mation or have information which is just not true.’U14 questioned whether ‘now we
have released the GM mosquitoes into the environment …do we have capacity to
manage the associated potential risks or even the human resources? They are not ade-
quate and above all you need to have a plan of training people because people retire,
people leave jobs …how do you then handle it?’This resonates with broader
findings and research into the governance of health research in eastern and southern
African countries, which have stressed that inadequate financial and human resources
capacities continue to undermine the development of strong health research (Juma et al.
2021).
Our data also highlighted the importance of the cultural and religious context in Mali
and Uganda. There was a strong articulation of the importance of social referents –actors
and figures trusted and valued by communities. U2 emphasised that ‘cultural leaders
cannot be underestimated here in Uganda’. U1 similarly stressed that ‘if the leaders
are negative, even if you go to the communities it wouldn’t work.’Religious and cultural
leaders were described as being ‘listened to,’particularly the Pentecostal Churches (U15).
Participants referred to the existence of religious logics, making reference to fatalism and
‘God’s will’(M9). The ‘backing of the Ministry’was also recognised as being an impor-
tant source of generating legitimacy surrounding the development of new technology
(U9). Respondents described a rich repository of African expertise and an ‘African
based history of engagement with communities’(M1), with M7 expressing that speaking
‘Malian dialects is a condition for entering the community’(M7). Traditional communi-
cators were described as important and practicising an ‘art form’(M14). M9 expressed a
deep understanding of the role of eating with village leaders in building meaningful
relations. When asked about the nature of engaging with communities and publics, par-
ticipants articulated their own ideas about what meaningful and contextually specific
engagement practices might look like. For example, M14 emphasised that ‘we’re not
just talking about persuading one person to do a certain thing.’U17 pointed to the
importance of the technology developments teams being accessible, with U10 suggesting
the involvement of district area MPs.
Understanding the dynamics of the social that intersect with the development of gene
drive technology is important for a number of reasons. Recognising the social dynamics
that contribute to scepticism can help to move beyond what Bardosh (2014) describes as
the ‘problematic assumption’that resistance to health initiatives and technologies stems
from a lack of awareness, pointing to the importance of sociological and historical under-
standings. More importantly, however, mapping the social dynamics in this way clearly
evidences that the domain of the social cannot be restricted to public opinion alone –a
key issue that we explore in sections 3.2 and beyond.
Understanding existing roles for social science
This section identifies four themes that emerged from the data on the role of the social
sciences in gene drive development in Mali and Uganda. This role was positioned as
being able to (a) deliver acceptance of gene drive technology; (b) enable effective com-
munication; (c) help to understand people and change behaviour; and (d) bring new per-
spectives to problem definitions and solutions.
8K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

Theme 1: Social science delivers acceptance of gene drive technology
The social sciences were understood by our respondents predominantly as facilitating
and generating social acceptance. ‘Linguists, sociologists and agro-economists’(M13)
were described as functioning to ‘help smoothen the project and ensure its success’
(M13), making ‘the difference between emotional areas’(M1). M12 described social
scientists as the ‘needles that sew everything together …that’s the work of the sociol-
ogists.’For interview participant M9, ‘when the social anthropologist agents go to
these areas and sites, there are actions that they take to help the people there accept scien-
tific progress.’As M9 further explained, ‘people like specific smells …and colour …we
need social anthropologists to lead people to accept our actions.’It was emphasised by
M9 that ‘if we can’t use them [social scientists], we won’t see the results that we want.’
For U1, ‘cultural leaders are like social scientists. Like we see now in Buganda, if the
Katikkiro said something, let’s say he is against the GMOs, can you succeed doing any
work here? You can’t. But supposing he supports? Work would be easier for us.’M7
described social-anthropologists as the ‘spies of medicine,’helping to remove potential
hurdles to the development of the technology. U2 emphasised that ‘we have the regula-
tors, of course we have the cultural leaders, political leaders, we have the academics, we
have the civil society, all these speak for and support this kind of research, and all of them
have a sphere influence that we need.’
Theme 2: Social science enables effective communication
Related to the theme of social acceptance was a strong emphasis on the practical
dimensions of informing, explaining and educating communities. The ‘skills of sociol-
ogists, agro-economists, [and] traditional communicators’were described as being
imperative in ‘making the community understand the comparative advantages’and
‘explaining in the finest detail’(M13). As M5 put it, ‘they help people understand the
technologies.’For M11, ‘sociologists and people from the communities themselves, are
the people to inform first and foremost.’M2 emphasised that ‘research does not necess-
arily mean only research into the area of biotechnology. There are different areas of
research such as health, language and culture. We need all these different layers to
explain what we are doing’. Communication was framed in both instrumental as well
as non-instrumental registers, sometimes in terms of pushing towards acceptance but
also in terms of raising awareness. On a more instrumental level, M12 described sociol-
ogists as being able to find ‘the precise word that might be able to appease a situation’.
U17 relatedly emphasised that ‘if you get a person who is not a good communicator,
you spoil the message …so social people that are local bring out these things’(U17).
M6 stressed that ‘there needs to be a really strong policy of communication. Social
sciences have their place here and that is key. Tomorrow, we might have transgenic mos-
quitoes, but without communication it is nothing.’M9 pointed to the importance of
careful and tailored communication, remarking that ‘do you know that if people
cleaned their yards they would suffer less from insects …we must tell them this, but
not in an overly shocking way –Malians do not like instructions.’M7 described how
‘Professor [anonymised] …who is an anthropologist …says to us that we speak
several Malian languages and dialects, and that those are the conditions for entering
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 9

into the community.’For M11 the ‘sociologist role is very important’in raising ‘aware-
ness about the role of biotechnology throughout the community. Raising awareness is
partly about publicity, explaining different products, what they contain, what they do.’
U5 similarly stressed that ‘I am happy that people in anthropology and social sciences
try and break down this technology.’
Theme 3: Social science can understand people and change behaviours
There was a strong recognition of the role of the social sciences in understanding
people and behaviours. As M5 remarked, ‘social sciences help scientists understand
people.’Interviewee M6, described how if the gene drive technique works well, unanti-
cipated or undesired behavioural changes could emerge surrounding the use of protec-
tive nets. M6 stressed that ‘mosquito nets are not only for protection against malaria …
this is where we see the importance of the social sciences. We will need to continue to
protect ourselves against other harmful insects.’U3 relatedly emphasised that pre-
empting ‘how [people] think, that’s sociology.’As M9 explained, ‘sociologists are
needed here when people say that they do not like the colour of a specific net, or
when they say that mosquito nets make them sterile.’U1 placed significant emphasis
on the mediating role of cultural dynamics and leaders, stating that ‘when government
and politicians call people to give blood, [people] don’t go there. But when the Kabaka
or Katikkiro (prime minister) says we need blood …The whole compound is flooded
with people.’M9 similarly stressed the importance of leadership as a key ‘sociological
parameter.’Social scientists were positioned as understanding the value such stake-
holders can bring into the dynamics and will ensure a platform is given to them to
play this role.
Theme 4: Social sciences can bring new and valuable perspectives to problem definitions
and solutions
A further area where the social sciences were identified as having an important role to
play was in relation to the broader impacts of the technology as well as the identification
of benefits and harms. U2 stated there is a need for ‘social scientists that will be able to
bring out the social, cultural, economic impacts.’For U2, the newness of the technology
heightened the need for a multidisciplinary approach: ‘being a new field we cannot have a
limit but rather the opposite, as to who is best placed to make an assessment of an ident-
ified risk and we need to have people looking at it from various perspectives, because
from the health perspective a risk might be different or might work out differently
from a social perspective or a cultural perspective.’U10 similarly stated that ‘We need
a multidisciplinary committee or team that is going to regulate these technologies in
the country and not just it being a scientific issue. Because, as you know, this issue of
gene drive is not just about science, it’s about human rights, it’s about social cultural
aspects. There are various dimensions of the implications of this research to us, as Afri-
cans, as Ugandans.’Social science was recognised for its role in identifying issues and
topics that would otherwise remain unconsidered. For example, M16 posited that
‘often that’s the problem with some research; scientists are developing things in units
and groups and they all share the same mindset and target, and they may think, for
10 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

example, that they don’t really need to have social scientists who might have another
vision.’U4 emphasised that ‘you have to lay out what the problem is …but we’ve
come in from the top and now all that comes is this conspiracy thing.’U10 described
an ‘oligopoly where people with same interests want to regulate without due regard
for people on the receiving end …as I already told you, at the beginning of the adoption
of this project, they only spoke to researchers in the development of this new technology.
They thought that it was only the researchers that they needed. But they really needed a
widened sphere of people to help.’
Despite a dominant focus on the role of social sciences as facilitators and generators of
social acceptance, there exist multiple framings of social science contributions in Uganda
and Mail. The four themes reflect well the social dynamics identified in Section 3.1 and
demonstrate the potential for the social sciences in this case. Section 3.3 now explores
possible research agendas for the social sciences.
Imagining future roles for social sciences
In the 2021 workshop, participants reflected on their experiences, setting an agenda for
social science research, as well as identifying priority areas and research questions not
yet being asked. Similar to the interview materials, participants recounted the entangling
of gene drive with suspicion, with many people, especially politicians, not trusting gene
drives. This was partly used to explain why the bill to regulate field trials was rejected.
Knowledge of gene drive was also identified as being limited to a small section of scientists,
with even those who are more acquainted, having scant information and mistaking it for
GMOs. Participants made a case for social science research independent of the science and
scientific research funders from the Global North, emphasising that social science looks at
protecting human beings, offering imagination beyond science. Unanimously, participants
agreed that most if not all social science disciplines should be involved including social
work, anthropology, sociology, gender studies, and political science.
Research priorities identified by workshop participants included a need to explore
what people think of gene drive, with concerns being raised regarding the possibility
of gene drive being misunderstood at the community level because gene drive is not
translated into the local languages. Social scientists were positioned here as being able
to support local vocabulary or language development, as well as develop assistive tools
including visual aids, which could help to simplify knowledge and understandings of
what gene drive is to target communities. This included being able to say gene drive
in Luganda, Luo or in Runyankore Rukiga, culturally accepted languages that people
can understand. Other priority research areas identified by workshop participants
included examining preparedness for unintended consequences, cost effectiveness of
the technology, appropriate societal mechanisms for whistle blowing, and the roles to
be assumed by target communities. Related to the engagement of target communities,
attention was drawn to the need to explore consent models (with a particular alertness
to bottom-up design and gender dimensions), as well as any moral, ethical, legal and
economic questions in the event that the mosquitoes are patented. Other areas for
social science attention included providing explanations on the cultural dynamics that
might negatively impact on the gene drive studies and informing risk assessments by
interrogating social issues.
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 11

As a regional technology which requires regional governance, it was emphasised that
Ugandan social scientists can collaborate with those in other African countries to develop
a regional agenda for social science research on gene drive in three main ways, namely
through jointly developed networks, exploiting and involving the regional East African
Community inter-university collaboration framework, and leveraging the NEPAD plat-
form at the continental level. Participants pointed to an overreliance on international
regulations, calling for attention to the pathways to engage with the relevant legislative
bodies and create awareness following properly laid down procedures and structures.
Similar issues and priorities have been identified in analyses of the factors necessary to
support robust health governance systems in Africa, a key area of interest and attention
for the WHO Regional Office for Africa (Juma et al. 2021). Workshop participants envi-
saged connections with the village health teams (VHTs) and district vector control
officers. It was emphasised that there is a need for the social sciences to clarify
different cultures and philosophies of risks and benefits associated with gene drive, as
well as the role of indigenous knowledge in the design of governance frameworks.
Lastly, they identified a need to enhance participatory approaches and interdisciplinarity
to include both communities and stakeholders, as well as social scientists in technology
development and governance.
The workshop was a first step in enabling social scientists and stakeholders to reflect
on the social dynamics of malaria and the potential of a gene drive solution. It enabled
discussion of future roles for the social sciences imagined in relation to the governance of
gene drive in Mali and Uganda which cut across a range of communication, critical, gen-
erative and descriptive modalities of social science.
Opening up responsible innovation to social sciences in the global south
In the 2010 World Social Science Report, Mouton identified that the social sciences are
practiced within most African countries in universities operating under conditions of sig-
nificant under-resourcing, where state funding is an exception rather than the rule
(Mouton 2010). Mouton identifies patterns in the practice of social science across the
continent, describing little mention of social science in National African research
plans, with an overarching emphasis focusing on the health sciences, and ‘popular’pri-
orities such as biotechnology. More recently, there have been flickerings of shifting
dynamics. In particular, the Ebola epidemic of 2014-2015, marked a pivotal moment
in global health where social science and humanities expertise successfully ‘cut into
the dominant paradigm of biomedicine and health science that currently undergirds
global health’(Holden and Jensen 2017, 124). Social scientists were able to articulate
the social-cultural dynamics in tension with science-led responses and were provided
with a level of access to decision making platforms and bodies (Abramowitz et al.
2015). This situation was also observed in the Ebola Sudan Virus outbreak 2022 in
Uganda. Here, social scientists effectively ‘humanised’the response, feeding into the
development of effective risk communication and community engagement strategies
seeking to ensure resonance with communities on the ground. Social science data has
also contributed to the identification of gaps and concerns relevant to the design of a
more robust response, including concerns associated with the militarisation of the
response, the lack of traditional healer involvement, the belief that ebola was ‘good
12 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

business’and for political gain, the ways in which colours and presentational materials
fuelled this belief further, anxieties associated with the large and flashy nature of the
vehicles associated with surveillance initiatives and distrust in the medical profession
(Bardosh, Gercama, and Bedford 2019). Anthropologists and community engagement
officers have further played a role in negotiating safe burial practices (Anoko and
Henry 2020) and as Allgaier and Svalastog (2015, 498) have more broadly stressed, the
‘biomedical concept of contagion, …can strongly differ from the complex cultural con-
ceptions of contagion in various Non-Western cultures,’providing a clear reminder of
the fundamental importance of social science lenses and perspectives.
Diversifying roles for social sciences in responsible innovation
RI and science and technology studies scholars have cautioned against social science roles
in innovation assemblages which serve a handmaiden role to pre-defined technological
solutions (Balmer et al. 2015; Bardosh 2014). Handmaiden or instrumental roles have
been implicated in shutting down opportunities for meaningful opening up of the direc-
tionality of technology futures as well as for delimiting the scope of upstream problem
definition. In the case of gene drive for malaria control in Mali and Uganda, an instru-
mental framing of social inquiry also exists in the Global South (Ledingham and Hartley
2021). Social inquiry is formatted in an enabling role by our interview participants, servi-
cing the development of gene drive technology. Social scientists were described as ‘com-
municators’working towards the acceptance of gene technology. This resonates with
Mouton’s analysis of the state of the social sciences in sub-Saharan Africa, which has
emphasised that where ‘reference is made to the social sciences and humanities this is
usually done as an ‘appendix’and in support of or as service to the natural sciences’
(Mouton 2010, 34). In RI’s Northern framing, the instrumental rendering of social
science is closely linked to deficit models of public engagement which holds that resist-
ance to technology is a result of a lack of correct information. Deficit models engage
publics tend not to open up innovation trajectories but to smooth out pathways to
implementation. They are approaches which have proven ‘very difficult to dislodge’
(de Saille 2015, 163). Due to the depoliticising role of deficit approaches, RI in the
Global North has emphasised instead the richness of knowledges held by multiple
publics (Callon 1999) and deficit approaches are regarded as being not aligned with an
RI approach (Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017; Macnaghten 2016).
Gene drive development in Mail and Uganda challenges the ready association of
instrumental and deficit approaches with processes of depoliticisation. There remain
key gaps in knowledge around malaria transmission and biotechnology in need of
addressing which raises pressing questions about the need for inclusion of social
science activity geared towards an educational dimension, while avoiding the privileging
of Western or scientist ontologies which advocate for pre-determined innovation path-
ways. Indeed, as Pansera and Owen (2018) highlight, science literacy can be an important
means of driving empowerment. The tensions and synergies between communicational,
educational and critical forms of social science engagement have not yet been fully con-
sidered in RI, with RI in the Global North tending towards an emphasis on critical social
science. While RI has usefully differentiated between normative, substantive and instru-
mental rationales for engaging with publics, we suggest that greater differentiation
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 13

between various modes of social science engagement is an important area of focus for the
RI community going forward. Instead of being necessarily indicative of innovation
approaches that are not aligned with an RI approach, these less critical forms of social
science can help to redress asymmetries in knowledge and contribute to broader forms
of empowerment through raising awareness and contributing to transparency and
understanding. More broadly, we suggest that communicational and educational
forms of social science may also become increasingly pertinent amidst the development
of emergent innovation capabilities in the Global North (such as complex industrial data
ecologies) whose scale and distributedness can generate (in)visibilities and render inno-
vations hard to discern, presenting a challenge for apprehension and subsequent collec-
tive stewardship. This points to the importance of differentiated forms of social science as
an important constituent component of the collective interrogation of technology trajec-
tories, raising implications not just for the theoretical inclinations of RI, but also for how
RI is practiced methodologically (i.e. focusing on the pre-figurative work that might need
to take place prior to the facilitation of processes of anticipation and reflection).
In this regard, any attempt to develop responsible innovations for contemporary chal-
lenges requires making space not only for critical social science, but for social science
contributions in all its forms. As evidenced in Table 1 below, there are many forms or
modes of social science and while the RI community is particularly alert to the instru-
mental, reflexive and the generative, to account for only these registers is to miss a
much fuller and richer picture surrounding the potential roles of the social sciences in
innovation development processes. Bennett’s typology below, emerging from the field
of conservation environmental sciences, and which we have applied to our case, helps
to generate greater reflexivity surrounding the role of the social sciences in collaboration
spaces. We suggest that Bennet’s framework may help to guide meaningful and genera-
tive collaboration practices in the space of RI and that engaging with interdisciplinary
sensitivities and tools is an important source of conceptual inspiration and innovation
for RI.
Promoting and supporting social sciences in Mali and Uganda
In the Global North there are growing calls for experimental forms of social science col-
laboration in innovation assemblages and for the cultivation of creative approaches to
reflexivity. In the Global South, however, it is clear from our case that languages of exper-
imentation must be accompanied by a robust consideration of the material barriers and
Table 1. Diverse potential roles for social science in responsible innovation (adapted from Bennett
et al. 2017).
Social science roles Examples include:
Descriptive Understanding people and culture
Diagnostic Identifying structural and infrastructural gaps
Disruptive Re-routing technology trajectories; exploring alternative options in a meaningful way
Reflexive Understanding assumptions, funding conditions, agendas
Generative Generation of new issue publics, building capacity e.g. through infrastructures or through
knowledge
Innovative Culturally sensitive substantive engagement
Instrumental Messaging and informing
14 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

political realities faced by social scientists. Social scientists from malaria endemic
countries describe a number of factors that limit the application of social science
insight in tropical public health as well as malaria control (Ngalame et al. 2004).
Ngalame et al. (2004) point to the ‘paucity of research centres’and ‘limited funding
for social science research,’with most job opportunities being limited to short-term
career paths. Owusu, Kalipeni, and Kiiru (2014) similarly identify meagre funding and
the continual under-valuing and under-resourcing of the social sciences as a major
obstacle. As our workshop participants emphasised, it is notable that there is no
funding for independent social science in gene drive in the Global South. The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the most prominent organisations working in the
global challenges space and the primary funder of gene drive research in Africa, currently
offers no funding for independent social science in sub-Saharan Africa (Hartley, Koko-
tovich, and McCalman 2022). Further, such an influential and well-resourced actor
makes it more challenging for the social sciences or activist movements to act as a critical
counterbalance or offer an interrogation of gene drive or its governance. This gap means
that there is little reflexivity surrounding the technological imaginaries that accompany
the work of the Gates Foundation. Given that many African countries have not developed
strong health governance systems, this can lead to health research priorities (and
responses) being imported form foreign research and funding organisations which
may ‘distort [the] research focus on external priorities when local needs may be
different’(Juma et al. 2021, 8).
Accompanying this pattern is a trend for academics to engage in consultancy work,
which has been implicated in exacerbating a narrow policy orientation of African
social research and in increasing a Global North dominance of the research agenda
(Owusu, Kalipeni, and Kiiru 2014; Wight 2008). Consultancies are driven partly by
inadequate social science salaries and stability, as well as by the opportunity they
present to improve knowledge and skills. In some African countries like Uganda,
funding for social science and humanities, including scholarships, research, recruitments,
and salaries, has further been stifled by the open presidential policy of promoting natural
sciences. The natural sciences are privileged in this way because they are believed to have
the power to transform the economy, with natural scientists receiving higher pay than
their social science colleagues (Parliament of the Republic of Uganda 2022).
While working towards equitable collaboration necessitates deep change at a struc-
tural level and in the complex fabrics of distributed governance which cannot be achieved
by singular institutions, publics, or epistemic collectives alone (such as the RI commu-
nity), there are, however, numerous levers that can support the cultivation of greater
equitability. In some areas of global health, for example, manuscripts are discouraged
where primary data collection has been collected in a LMIC without co-authorship
(Urassa et al. 2021). There is a need for journals like JRI to actively seek articles from
social scientists in the Global South rather than relying on Northern academics to articu-
late it. Career development networks have also been identified by social scientists in
malaria endemic countries as key factors to support and strengthen social science in
such countries (Ngalame et al. 2004). As we note in the funding declaration to this
paper, four connected grants supported this work where two early career researchers,
one in the UK and one in Uganda, developed from PDRA researchers to Co-Is, taking
on more responsibility.
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 15

In line with RI’s aspiration to direct research efforts towards broader questions of
innovation governance and innovation systems in addition to specific technologies, we
argue that making visible and attending to the infrastructures and processes that under-
mine and which can help to support the inclusion of the social sciences in its diverse
forms is an important area of research for RI going forward. Piccolino and Franklin
(2019), for example, have examined the impact of research risk assessment practices
within UK and European universities. They argue that growing research risk assessment
practices can mobilise contested and neo-colonial cartographies of ‘danger zones,’which
discourage long term field and ethnographic work, presenting unintended consequences
for collaborative and African knowledge generation. This raises implications for, and can
threaten to derail, aspirations not merely to recognise LMIC researchers as collaborative
partners, but to enable ‘equal opportunity for leadership rather than simply participation
in cross-cultural social science’(Urassa et al. 2021, 669).
By adding to research efforts which make more explicit the various and multiple ways
in which the social sciences can contribute to innovation trajectories both in the Global
South and in the Global North, we have sought to offer a small contribution to the ‘infra-
structures’that can help to support diverse epistemic inclusion in robust ways. Making
explicit the different forms of social science that can be mobilised within innovation pro-
jects can help to problematise instances within technology development practices where
the social sciences are brought on board solely as engagement practitioners (ESA 2020),
contributing to greater accountability and more robust practice. On a broader level,
explicitly articulating and delineating the diverse value and contributions made by the
social sciences (for example, in relation to the Ebola epidemic) can also help to change
perceptions of the social sciences among researchers, funders, stakeholders and epistemic
communities such as RI scholars. This can support moving beyond recurrent and reduc-
tive modes of epistemic organising. Indeed, too often the role of scientists is reduced to
one of ‘implementation specialists,’who can guide the operationalisation of top-down
health interventions, ‘context specialists’who can identify cultural idiosyncrasies that
might get in the way of specific projects, or specialists in ‘public opinion’who are able
to pre-empt public concerns that might present hurdles to the rolling out of new initiat-
ives. As we have highlighted in this paper, the social sciences can throw into relief
complex processes and dynamics, help to redress asymmetries in knowledge and help
capacitate processes which place publics and local actors more in the steering seat of
innovation trajectories. Recognition of the value of the social sciences is, we suggest,
an important part of ongoing efforts to develop strong health research governance
systems (Juma et al. 2021), with potential to be formalised within national and insti-
tutional structures and systems.
Working towards equitable collaboration also requires recognising the value and con-
tributions to be made to theory building by social science practices and endeavours in the
Global South (Briggs and Weathers 2016). Macnaghten et al. (2014), for example, argue
that innovation practices and processes in these spaces can serve as important sites of
learning for RI practices in the Global North and certainly, in our case, established prac-
tices of local engagement with social referents in the Global South, as well as accumulated
lessons surrounding how to engage communities amidst a backdrop deep mistrust, may
provide important insights and cues for the development of innovation pathways in the
Global North where institutional distrust and social polarisation are pressing policy
16 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

issues. We recognise, however, following Khan et al (2022), Haug (2021) and others, that
terms such as the Global North and Global South are limiting and can reify problematic
assumptions. We suggest that going forward it will be important to specify empirically, as
we have sought to do in this paper, the social dynamics that shape realities in these
spaces, so as to enable comparative analysis, theory building and mutual learning
going forward. Indeed, as pointed out in a recent contribution by Harris et al. (2016, 5):
You could make the argument that structurally, the Ghanian system is far closer to the UK
system than the American system will ever be ….it is centrally administered, district-based
health system, much like the NHS is. And so theoretically, ideas from Ghana would be more
relevant than ideas from the US. But that’s not how the learning works. And that’s the
cultural arrogance piece of the postcolonial legacy that I think interferes.’
Challenging assumptions and orientations in responsible innovation
Regularly reflecting on the assumptions and orientations imbued within the practices and
theoretical leanings of RI, through empirical insights and data generated on the ground,
is an important part of developing a more inclusive RI framework. This is imperative in
supporting RI in its desire to provide a series of tools and inclinations that can help to
steer innovation pathways and infrastructures, not simply in relation to high technology
in the Global North, but in a diversity of settings and relationships. We have highlighted
how, in the Global North, RI has advocated for critical forms of social science that gesture
towards alternate social-technical futures (Macnaghten et al. 2014) and which are dis-
tanced from educational or communicational social science that can be co-opted into
an instrumental or hand-maiden role. While RI has been quick to align communicational
and educational forms of social science with processes of depoliticisation and a deficit
model, these forms of social science have an important role to play in broader processes
of capacity building and can help to redress asymmetries in knowledge. It would, there-
fore, be too quick and reductive a conclusion to simply attest that in the Global South,
there is similarly an instrumental rendering of social science at play and that this presents
an obstacle to the meaningful opening up of innovation trajectories. Reflecting on the
assumptions imbued within the theoretical predilections of RI can help to open up a
more inclusive reconfigured RI framework.
As well as the practical benefits stemming from social science engagement, social
science can bring conceptual innovation too. Yet, Anugwom (2004 in Mouton 2010,
36) describes how ‘the corpus of theoretical leanings and methodological orientations
in African social sciences are mostly abstractions of Western models produced by scho-
lars there,’with commentators pointing to the ‘lack of indigenous African theories and
conceptual models to address the dynamics and challenges of the region’(Mouton
2010, 36). This is problematic, given that not only are understandings of challenge
issues that are removed from given challenges limited in their ability to inform robust
and appropriate solutions, but also because the intractable or ‘wicked’(Ludwig et al.
2022) nature of today’s pressing challenges necessitates creative solutions and approaches
that can only emerge from an attentiveness towards multiple ontologies and ways of
thinking. As RI shifts to an attentiveness towards questions of governance and engages
in renewed efforts to move the field forward in new ways (Fisher 2020), we have high-
lighted the diversity of roles envisaged for the input of the social sciences in technological
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 17

assemblages in the Global South, arguing that there is a need for RI to reflect on its own
theoretical predilections as well as the infrastructures that support the inclusion of
diverse scientific expertise (moving beyond a focus on the inclusion of publics and
other stakeholders –see also Koch 2020).
The case of gene drive is an example of a high-biotechnology being developed to
address a pressing global health challenge. As Schot and Steinmueller (2018) and
many other innovation scholars point out, technological approaches to contemporary
challenges can exhibit limits in their ability to effect change, particularly given their pro-
pensity to focus on the symptoms rather than the structural and systems dynamics that
drive health and related challenges in the first place. Yet, we want to conclude by arguing
that it is important not to place systems change and technology development in opposi-
tion to one another. The very process of technology development and appraisal can con-
tribute to the cultivation of new capabilities, sociabilities and the connections necessary
to empowering publics and rewiring social systems (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). In our
data set, participants identified connections that could be mobilised to build momentum
and capacity to amplify social science voices. These connections are relevant not just to
gene drive but to innovations for health challenges more broadly. In this sense, the
initiation of a technological project can contribute to the generation of networks and pro-
cesses that reverberate and extend beyond the specific goals and aims of that particular
project. Being alert to and tracing these reverberations is an important area of research
for RI going forward. In sum, given the gravity of the pressing challenges that we are
faced with today, attending to the nuances and complexities of practices and relation-
ships as they unfold on the ground is an important part of building robust theory and
impactful innovation solutions. We have demonstrated that it is not only important
for RI to attend to forms of social science often associated with a deficit approach, but
that these forms of social science and practices of social science in the Global South,
can provide important insights and learning opportunities for responsible innovation
processes going forward more broadly.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by four grants: (1) British Academy, KF1/100043 (PI, SH; Researcher,
KL); (2) British Academy KF2\100179 (PI, SH; CoIs, KL and SN; Researcher, CO); (3) GCRF
Facilitation Funding, University of Exeter (PI, SH; CoIs, KL, SN and CO); and, (4) GCRF
Follow-on Funding, University of Exeter (PI, SH; CoIs, KL, SN and CO). For the purpose of
open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any
Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.
Data access statement
This paper draws on secondary data analysis. Further information on the original data
sets can be found in the connected published papers and workshop report referenced
in the methods section.
18 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

ORCID
Katie Ledingham http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-4331
References
Abramowitz, S. A., K. Bardosh, M. Leach, B. Hewlett, M. Nichter, and V. K. Nguyen. 2015.“Social
Science Intelligence in the Global Ebola Response.”The Lancet 385 (9965): 330. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60119-2.
African Union and The New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development \(A.U. and NEPAD.
2018.Gene Drives for Malaria Control and Elimination in Africa. Midrand: South Africa.
African Union Development Agency - NEPAD (AUDA-NEPAD). 2020. Annual Report 2020.
Midrand: South Africa.
Allgaier, J., and A. L. Svalastog. 2015.“The Communication Aspects of the Ebola Virus Disease
Outbreak in Western Africa–do we Need to Counter one, two, or Many Epidemics?”
Croatian Medical Journal 56 (5): 496–499. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2015.56.496.
Anoko, J., and D. Henry. 2020.Balancing Burial Rituals with Public Health Demands During the
2014 Guinean Ebola Epidemic. SSHAP Case Study Issue 8, UNICEF, IDS and Anthrologica.
Anugwom, E. 2004.“African Social Sciences and Development in the New Century: Challenges
and Prospects.”African Development Review: African Development Bank 16 (2): 399–414.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1017-6772.2004.00.
Balmer, A. S., J. Calvert, C. Marris, S. Molyneux-Hodgson, E. Frow, M. Kearnes, K. Bulpin, et al.
2015.“Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI
Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community.”Science & Technology Studies 28 (3): 3–25.
https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55340.
Bardosh, K. 2014.“Global Aspirations, Local Realities: The Role of Social Science Research in
Controlling Neglected Tropical Diseases.”Infectious Diseases of Poverty 3 (35): 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1186/2049-9957-3-35.
Bardosh, K., I. Gercama, and J. Bedford. 2019.Social Science and Behavioural Data Compilation
(No. 3), Ebola Outbreak Eastern DRC February-May 2019. Social Science in Humanitarian
Action Platform.
Barry, N., P. Toé, L. Pare Toe, J. Lezaun, M. Drabo, R. C. Dabiré, and A. Diabate. 2020.
“Motivations and Expectations Driving Community Participation in Entomological Research
Projects: Target Malaria as a Case Study in Bana, Western Burkina Faso.”Malaria Journal 19
(199): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03277-7.
Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, et al. 2017.
“Conservation Social Science: Understanding and Integrating Human Dimensions to
Improve Conservation.”Biological Conservation 205: 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.10.006.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). 2020.Awarded Grants. Accessed 1 August, 2023.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019.“Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.”Qualitative Research
in Sport.”Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
Briggs, R. C., and S. Weathers. 2016.“Gender and Location in African Politics Scholarship: The
Other White Man’s Burden?”African Affairs 115 (460): 466–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/
afraf/adx033.
Callaway, E. 2018. “UN Treat Agrees to Limit Gene Drives but Rejects a Moratorium.”Nature,
November 29.https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07600-w.
Callon, M. 1999.“The Role of lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific
Knowledge.”Science, Technology and Society 4 (1): 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0971721899004001.
Chu, K. M., S. Jayaraman, P. Kyamanywa, and G. Ntakiyiruta. 2014.“Building Research Capacity
in Africa: Equity and Global Health Collaborations.”PLoS Medicine 11 (3): e1001612. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001612.
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 19

de Campos, A. S., S. Hartley, C. de Koning, J. Lezaun, and L. Velho. 2017.“Responsible Innovation
and Political Accountability: Genetically Modified Mosquitoes in Brazil.”Journal of Responsible
Innovation 4 (1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1326257.
de Graeff, N., K. R. Jongsma, J. Johnston, S. Hartley, and A. L. Bredenoord. 2019.“The Ethics of
Genome Editing in non-Human Animals: A Systematic Review of Reasons Reported in the
Academic Literature.”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374 (1772): 20180106.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106.
de Hoop, E., A. Pols, and H. Romijn. 2016.“Limits to Responsible Innovation.”Journal of
Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1231396.
de Saille, S. 2015.“Innovating Innovation Policy: The Emergence of ‘Responsible Research and
Innovation.’” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (2): 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23299460.2015.1045280.
Doezema, T., D. Ludwig, P. Macnaghten, C. Shelley-Egan, and E.-M. Forsberg. 2019.“Translation,
Transduction, and Transformation: Expanding Practices of Responsibility Across Borders.”
Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (3): 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.
1653155.
Entomological Society of America (ESA). 2020.“ESA Position Statement on the Importance of
Continued Innovation in Gene Drive Technology.”Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 113 (6): 486–487. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saaa029.
Fisher, E. 2020.“Reinventing Responsible Innovation.”Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1):
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1712537.
Glover, B., O. Akinbo, M. Savadogo, S. Timpo, G. Lemgo, W. Sinebo, S. Akile, et al. 2018.
“Strengthening Regulatory Capacity for Gene Drives in Africa: Leveraging NEPAD’s
Experience in Establishing Regulatory Systems for Medicines and GM Crops in Africa.”
BMC Proceedings 12 (Suppl 8): 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-018-0108-y.
Harris, M., E. Weisberger, D. Silver, V. Dadwal, and J. Macinko. 2016.“That’s not how the Learning
Works –the Paradox of Reverse Innovation: A Qualitative Study.”Globalization and Health 12
(36): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7.
Hartley, S., A. Kokotovich, and C. McCalman. 2022.“Prescribing Engagement in Environmental
Risk Assessment for Gene Drive Technology.”Regulation and Governance,https://doi.org/10.
1111/rego.12452.
Hartley, S., K. Ledingham, R. Owen, S. Leonelli, S. Diarra, and S. Diop. 2021a.“Experimenting
with co-Development: A Qualitative Study of Gene Drive Research for Malaria Control in
Mali.”Social Science and Medicine 276: 113850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.
113850.
Hartley, S., C. McLeod, M. Clifford, S. Jewitt, and C. Ray. 2019.“A Retrospective Analysis of
Responsible Innovation for low-Technology Innovation in the Global South.”Journal of
Responsible Innovation 6 (2): 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1575682.
Hartley, S., W. Pearce, and A. Taylor. 2017.“Against the Tide of Depoliticisation: The Politics of
Research Governance.”Policy and Politics 45 (3): 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1332/
030557316X14681503832036.
Hartley, S., R. D. J. Smith, A. Kokotovich, C. Opesen, T. Habtewold, K. Ledingham, B. Raymond,
et al. 2021b.“Ugandan Stakeholder Hopes and Concerns About Gene Drive Mosquitoes for
Malaria Control: New Directions for Gene Drive Risk Governance.”Malaria Journal 20
(149): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03682-6.
Holden, K., and N. Jensen. 2017.“From Under the Wheels of the Juggernaut: Global Health
Networks, Gold Standards and the Possibilities for Social Science Critique.”Science as
Culture 26 (1): 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1238889.
James, S., and K. H. Tountas. 2018.“Using Gene Drive Technologies to Control Vector-Borne
Infectious Diseases.”Sustainability 10 (12): 4789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124789.
Juma, P. A., C. M. Jones, R. Mijumbi-Deve, C. Wenham, T. Masupe, J. Sobngwi-Tambekou, G.
Biemba, et al. 2021.“Governance of Health Research in Four Eastern and Southern African
Countries.”Health Res Policy Sys 19 (132), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00781-3.
20 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.

Kamwi, R. N. 2016.“Gene Drive Debate Must Include Voices from Africa, elsewhere.”STAT News,
June 15. https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/15/gene-drive-debate-africa/#:~:text = As%20the%
20spread%20of,day%20stop%20them%3A%20gene%20drive.
Koch, S. 2020.“Responsible Research, Inequality in Science and Epistemic Injustice: An Attempt
to Open up Thinking About Inclusiveness in the Context of RI/RRI.”Journal of Responsible
Innovatio 7 (3): 672–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1780094.
Lambert, H., J. Gupte, H. Fletcher, L. Hammond, N. Lowe, M. Pelling, T. Shahid, et al. 2020.
“COVID-19 as a Global Challenge: Towards an Inclusive and Sustainable Future.”The
Lancet Planetary Health 4 (8): e312–e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30168-6.
Ledingham, K., and S. Hartley. 2021.“Transformation and Slippage in co-Production Ambitions
for Global Technology Development: The Case of Gene Drive.”Environmental Science and
Policy 116: 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.014.
Long, K. C., L. Alphey, G. J. Annas, C. S. Bloss, K. J. Campbell, J. Champer, C.-H. Chen, et al. 2020.
“Core Commitments for Field Trials of Gene Drive Organisms.”Science 370 (6523): 1417–1419.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd1908.
Ludwig, D., V. Blok, M. Garnier, P. Macnaghten, and A. Pols. 2022.“What’s Wrong with Global
Challenges?’’.”Journal of Responsible Innovation 9 (1): 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.
2021.2000130.
Macnaghten, P. 2016.“Responsible Innovation and the Reshaping of Existing Technological
Trajectories: The Hard Case of Genetically Modified Crops.”Journal of Responsible
Innovation 3 (3): 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1255700.
Macnaghten, P., R. Owen, J. Stilgoe, B. Wynne, A. Azevedo, A. de Campos, J. Chilvers, et al. 2014.
“Responsible Innovation Across Borders: Tensions, Paradoxes and Possibilities.”Journal of
Responsible Innovation 1 (2): 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.922249.
Marris, C. 2015.“The Construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology.”
Science as Culture 24 (1): 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986320.
Mouton, J. 2010.“The State of Social Science in sub-Saharan Africa.”In World Social Science
Report 2010: Knowledge Divides, edited by Unesco, 63–67. Paris: International Social Science
Council, Unesco.
Museveni, Y. 2019.“Letter: The Genetic Engineering Regulatory Act’’. Addressed to the Speaker,
Rt. Hon. Rebecca A. Kadaga. Accessed 26 Feb, 2021. http://parliamentwatch.ug/wp-content/
uploads/2020/08/Motion-for-Reconsideration-of-the-Genetic-Engineering-Regulatory-Bill-
2018-as-Returned-By-H.E-the-President-in-Accordance-with-Article-913b-of-the-
Constitution-and-Rule-142-of-the-Rules-of-Procedure.pd.
Ngalame, P. M., H. A. Williams, C. Jones, I. Nyamongo, S. Diop, and F. Gaspar. 2004.
“Participation of African Social Scientists in Malaria Control: Identifying Enabling and
Constraining Factors.”Malaria Journal 3 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-3-47.
Open Philanthropy. 2020.African Union Development Agency –General Support (2020). Accessed
1 August, 2023. https//www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/African-union-development-agency-
general-support-2020/.
Opesen, C. 2021.A Social Science Agenda for Gene Drive Research: Workshop Report. Kampala:
Makerere University.
Owusu, F., Kalipeni, E. and J. M. M. Kiiru. 2014.Capacity Building for Research Leadership: The
Need, Support and Strategies for Growing African Research Leaders. Nairobi: Partnership for
African Social and Governance Research.
Pandey, P., G. Valkenburg, A. Mamidipudi, and W. Bijker. 2020.“Responsible Research and
Innovation in the Global South: Agriculture, Renewable Energy and the Pursuit of
Symmetry.”Science, Technology and Society 25 (2): 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/
09717218209029.
Pansera, M., and R. Owen. 2018.“Innovation for de-Growth: A Case Study of Counter-Hegemonic
Practices from Kerala, India.”Journal of Cleaner Production 197: 1872–1883. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.197.
Pare Toe, L. 2021.“We Need to Redefine the Relationship Between Science and its end-Users.”
Nature Human Behaviour 5: 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01023-2.
JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION 21

Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. 2022.Public Service to Streamline Salaries of teachers by
2027. Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. Kampala.
Piccolino, G., and S. Franklin. 2019.“The Unintended Consequences of Risk Assessment Regimes:
How Risk Adversity at European Universities is Affecting African Studies.”Africa Spectrum 54
(3): 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002039719898904.
Prasad, C. S. 2020. “Constructing Alternative Socio-Technical Worlds: Re-Imagining RRI
Through SRI in India.”Science, Technology and Society 25 (2): 291–307. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0971721820903002.
Sarewitz, D. 2015.“CRISPR: ‘science Can’t Solve it.”Nature 522 (7557): 413–414. https://doi.org/
10.1038/522413a.
Schot, J., and W. E. Steinmueller. 2018.“Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of
Innovation and Transformative Change.”Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–1567. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
Shah, H. 2020.“Global Problems Need Social Science.”Nature 577 (7789): 295–296. https://doi.
org/10.1038/d41586-020-00064-x.
Urassa, M., D. W. Lawson, J. Wamoyi, E. Gurmu, M. A. Gibson, P. Madhivanan, and C. Placek.
2021.“Cross-cultural Research Must Prioritize Equitable Collaboration.”Nature Human
Behaviour 5 (6): 668–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01076-x.
Valkenburg, G. 2020.“Consensus or Contestation: Reflections on Governance of Innovation in a
Context of Heterogeneous Knowledges’’.”Science, Technology and Society 25 (2): 341–356.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097172182090300.
Valkenburg, G., A. Mamidipudi, P. Pandey, and W. Bijker. 2020.“Responsible Innovation as
Empowering Ways of Knowing.”Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 6–25. https://doi.
org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1647087.
Vasen, F. 2017.“Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda.”In
Responsible Innovation 3, edited by Asveld, L., van Dam-Mieras, R., Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen,
S., and Linse, K. Springer: Cham.
Wakunuma, K., F. de Castro, T. Jiya, E. A. Inigo, V. Blok, and V. Bryce. 2021.“Reconceptualising
Responsible Research and Innovation from a Global South Perspective.”Journal of Responsible
Innovation 8 (2): 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1944736.
Wight, D. 2008.“Most of our Social Scientists are not Institution Based …They are There for Hire
—Research Consultancies and Social Science Capacity for Health Research in East Africa.”
Social Science and Medicine 66 (1): 110–116. doi.10.1016j.socscimed.2007.07.019.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004.See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move
Upstream. London: Demos.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2021.World Malaria Report. World Health Organization:
Geneva.
22 K. LEDINGHAM ET AL.