Table 1.

Main features of the deficits of the two imagined scientist constructs.

Features	Version of science policymakers	Version of bio- and nanotechnology scientists
Problem diagnosis	The virtues of acting ethically and avoiding harm are important but providing benefits to society and anticipating future effects of research are more strongly emphasized. At the same time, the latter are not sufficiently pursued by the imagined scientist. Knowledge deficits are diagnosed with respect to assumptions about scientists’ lack of understanding of the complexity of science-society relations.	There is a deficit of agency with respect to how social responsibility can be cared for by whom.
Proposed solution	Deficits should be covered through collaboration with external actors.	The agency deficit was not seen as pressing or within the imagined scientist’s scope of action.
Source of expertise considered legitimate to address deficit	The imagined scientist can improve without outside intervention if disciplining mechanisms (grant proposal schemes) are in place and scientists comply with the RRI goals.	The imagined scientist has a deficit related to ethics in the biomedical area, which is met by collaborating with ethical committees.
Social order	In the final instance, the imagined scientist should enact social responsibility. Culture is not important. Practice is emphasized with respect to performing social responsibility but not the doing of science.	More powerful actors should act responsibly; politics and regulations are important for risk governance. The imagined scientist is embedded in the culture and practice of doing science.
Success criteria	Remains nebulous.	Not relevant because of lack of experienced problems that invite proposals of solutions.