Science in Dialogue - RRITrends

CONFERENCE REPORT

Science in DialogueTowards a European Model for

Responsible Research and Innovation

Odense, Denmark 23-25 April 2012

PREFACE by Morten Østergaard, Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education 3

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE 4

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS 6

MESSAGE DELIVERED AT THE CONFERENCEby Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science 10

CONFERENCE SUMMARY by Jack Stilgoe, conference rapporteur 12

SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 17 WORKSHOP 1 Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics

WORKSHOP 2 Ethics and Emerging Technologies

WORKSHOP 3 Inclusive and Open Innovation

WORKSHOP 4 Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendas and Creating Visions for European Futures

WORKSHOP 5 A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics

SUGGESTIONS produced by conference participants 23

Design: BGRAPHICPhotos: Lars Skaaning and ConsensusOnline

ISBN: 978-87-92776-52-5

For further information on the conference report, contact [email protected]

Videos, pictures and other conference documentation can be seen at www.scienceindialogue.dk

CONTENTS

http://www.scienceindialogue.dk

The Best Science for the World

Research and innovation activities do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are part of society and have a huge influence on the way we act, think and organise our communities at both local and global levels – as well as an enormous impact on our ability to create prosperity and progress. This means that there is a need to discuss the role we would like science to play in society – and the role we would like society to play in science. We need to shift the focus from aspiring to creating the best science in the world to aspiring to creating the best science for the world.

The presidency conference “Science in Dialogue” marked a welcome and needed shift in this direction. Under the subheading “Towards a European Model for Responsible Research and Innovation”, the conference did exactly that – discuss how the relationship between science and society can be strengthened and become more productive to the benefit of both science and society.

While dialogue and cooperation are in themselves great and can help improve our understanding of complex issues or our grasp of ethical dilemmas, the idea of respons ible research and innovation is also about increasing the quality of our investments in science. The probability of scientific results being relevant, robust and having a positive impact on society will increase if a sense of scientific social responsibility and respons-iveness to society’s concerns and wishes can be fostered – and increased dialogue is one way of achieving this.

The same is true when we talk about the large amount of research and innovation that is carried out in the private sector. The likelihood of new products and technologies being successful increases if they are developed on the basis of a sound understanding of public needs and concerns. As such, an open and inclusive approach based on dialogue between different sectors will help Europe heighten its innovative capacity.

I was pleased to see that representatives of many different sectors had found their way to Denmark for the conference – industry, universities, science com-municators, civil society organisations, authorities and political bodies. An important message from the conference was the need to promote cooperation between different sectors.

Another key message was the need to embed the concept of responsible research and innovation at the political level. Much can be done at this level to enhance the responsibility aspect in the way we approach and build a framework around research and innovation. Possible ways of doing so could be to consult stakeholders via

public consultation when we identify research areas of strategic importance; to make public access to research results a precondition for EU funding; or to invite actors from different sectors of society to participate in advisory groups when governance structures of research funding programmes are being developed.

On 31 May 2012, the Danish Presidency obtained a general agreement in the European Council on the structure and main line of activities in the next European funding programme for research and innovation – Horizon 2020. The agreement defines the relationship between science and society and the promotion of Responsible Research and Innovation as one of the cross-cutting issues in the programme. In the coming year, the particularities of Horizon 2020 will be fleshed out. This is a great opportunity to anchor the concept of science’s social responsibility in a concrete framework. I strongly believe that the idea of science and society being connected by a mutual responsibility is something that should not be limited to certain scientific disciplines. Rather, it should be a foundation that permeates all activities in research and innovation. As such, I would encourage a final lay-out of Horizon 2020 that promotes this line of thinking across the whole frame work pro-gramme.

While much can be done at organisational and structural levels to foster responsible research and innovation, I would like to stress that the mindset of responsibility starts with the individual researcher or innovator. We have come a long way in past years, but there is still room for improvement. The quality and relevance of research in areas such as new medicine or sustainable energy will be heightened if research is carried out in dialogue with the end users of new technologies, with authorities and with stakeholders. Informal platforms such as science shops, consultation or public meetings between researchers, private companies and the wider society could be developed to this end.

I encourage researchers to engage in society, to be open to dialogue and to have an eye for public concerns and ambitions – all with the ambition of building better science for the world.

MORTEN ØSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education

PREFACE

PAGE 3

Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN \ SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES

The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at Euroscience Open Forum 2014 in Copenhagen.

From 21-26 June 2014, international researchers, policymakers, students, entrepreneurs, and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take part in ESOF 2014, Europe’s largest general science conference.

The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model of Responsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactions to the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally.

For futher information, visit www.esof2014.org

The conference “Science in Dialogue – Towards a European Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vation” took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as part of the Danish EU Presidency.

The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education with assistance from the think tank DEA. It was hosted by the University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participated in the conference and more than 35 highly qualified speakers had been invited to speak or debate at the conference. The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples from various sectors such as government, universities, industry, NGOs and science communication.

Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of the conference, and the conference format itself supported this. During all plenary sessions, iPads were distributed to the conference participants. This allowed them to

easily take part in the panel debates by typing comments and questions that everybody in the auditorium could see and respond to, which ensured a high level of interaction between the conference participants and panellists or speakers.

iPads were also used as a working tool during the workshops that took place on the second conference day. This made it possible for the workshop participants to split up into small working groups while still exchanging knowledge and ideas within the large workshop group.

No conference conclusions or recommendations had been drafted before the conference, and the workshops were designed to let the conference participants develop ideas and suggestions for action within specific topics such as ethics and emerging technologies or engaging stakeholders in research agendas.

The suggestions produced by the conference participants have also been included in the conference report.

About the conference

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 4

http://www.esof2014.org

About the conference participants

Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2%

26%

6%

53%

13%

Where do you live?

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Other

Private sector

Public research institution

Media

Government

7%

4%

11%

48%

3%

26%

In which sector are you employed?

When asked about their expectations to the conference, these were some of the answers given by the conference participants:

– A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation

– I would like to see some new, concrete input/ideas on how we can ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society

– I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research

– I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communication programme in my country

– Beyond words!

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5

THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

PAGE 6PAGE 6


The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012 The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper

WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION

JENS ODDERSHEDE, Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark

MORTEN ØSTERGAARD, Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education

MÁIRE GEOGHEGAN-QUINN, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science (video message)

PANEL DEBATEWhat Does it Mean to be Responsible in Research and Innovation?

JOHN CROWLEY, Chief of Division of Ethics, Science and Society, UNESCO

ROBERT LEE, Professor and Head of the ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society

JACK STILGOE, Senior Research Fellow, University of Exeter

RENÉ VON SCHOMBERG, Dr. Dr.Phil, Ethics and Gender Unit, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission

PAOLO FIORINI, Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA

PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders – What are the Potential Benefits and Main Challenges?

PETER HØNGAARD ANDERSEN, Dr. and Senior Vice President, H. Lundbeck A/S, External Scientific Relations & Patents

ULRIKE FELT, Professor at the Department of Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna

LINDA NIELSEN, Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen

RICHARD SCLOVE, Ph.D. and Director of Mind & Life Institute (US)

PRESENTATIONTrends and Patterns of Science in Society Across Europe

NIELS MEJLGAARD, Dr. and Director of the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University

Short reflection on the day’s discussions

By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe, Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

Informal reception with the interactive installation “Kaleidoscope” presented by the Centre for Art and Science, University of Southern Denmark


PAGE 7PAGE 7


CONFERENCE DAY 224 April 2012

PRESENTATIONScience in Dialogue: Why? When? How?

ALAN IRWIN, Professor and Dean of Research at Copenhagen Business School Introduction to the participatory workshop sessions

STINA VRANG ELIAS, CEO of Danish think tank DEA

WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics

Workshop chair MAJA HORST, Head of the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen

Workshop speakers JEAN-PIERRE ALIX, Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society

SØREN HARNOW KLAUSEN, Professor, dr. phil., University of Southern Denmark and the Danish Council for Independent Research – Humanities

ALEXANDER GERBER, Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centre for Science and Innovation Communication

WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Workshop chair JACK STILGOE, Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

Workshop speakers ŽANETA OZOLINA, Professor at Department of Political Science, University of Latvia

CAROLIN KRANZ, Senior Manager at Communications & Government Relations, BASF

WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation

Workshop chair ARIE RIP, Professor at Centre for Studies of Science, Tecnology and Society, University of Twente

Workshop speakers LARS KLÜVER, Director of Secretariat, Danish Board of Technology

INÉS SÁNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA, Professor and Head of Unit, Women and Science Unit, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Cabinet of the Minister

PRATEEK SUREKA, Researcher, Big Innovation Centre


PAGE 8PAGE 8


WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendas and Creating Visions for European Futures

Workshop chair ANDY STIRLING, Professor at Sussex University, STEPS – Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability

Workshop speakers KAARE CHRISTENSEN, Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research Center, University of Southern Denmark

HANS MÜLLER PEDERSEN, Director General at the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation

ROBBERT DROOP, Policy Coordinator, Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics

Workshop chair STINA VRANG ELIAS, CEO of Danish think tank DEA

Workshop speakers MARK DUBOIS, Ph.D. at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University and GAP2 participant

PIERRE-BENOIT JOLY, Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA), France

EXHIBITIONPresentation of projects and initiatives

This session was dedicated to the exhibition area with presentations of projects, initiatives and best practice.

CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012

PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS

PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for Responsible Research and Innovation – based on the workshop findings

ELKE ANKLAM, Director of the Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission

MARC DURANDO, Executive Director of European Schoolnet

THOMAS GROSFELD, Senior Advisor, Innovation Policy and Higher Education, VNO-NCW

MAJA HORST, Head of the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen

BRITTA THOMSEN, Member of the European Parliament

PRESENTATIONInteraction between Research, Innovation and Society in a Horizon 2020-perspective

TERESA RIERA MADURELL, Member of the European Parliament

PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living Knowledge Conference in Bonn, May 10-12

HENK MULDER, Dr., Faculty of Sciences, University of Groningen

PRESENTATIONS Euroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014

PATRICK CUNNINGHAM, Professor, Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012 and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government

KLAUS BOCK, Professor, Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 and Chairman of the Danish National Research Foundation

CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE

Conference Rapporteur JACK STILGOE, Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

OCTAVI QUINTANA-TRIAS, Director for DG Research and Innovation, European Commission


PAGE 9


Message delivered at the conferenceby MÁIRE GEOGHEGAN-QUINN, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science

The dialogue between science and the rest of society has never been more important.As the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear, to overcome the current economic crisis we need to create a smarter, greener economy, where our prosperity will come from research and innovation. Science is the basis for a better future and the bedrock of a knowledge-based society and a healthy economy.

In the search for prosperity, jobs and a better life for everyone, research, innovation and new technologies present us with many different choices and many possible paths to follow.

Researchers, policy makers, business people, innovators and most of all, the general public, have difficult choices to make as regards how science and technology can help tackle our different societal challenges – whether climate change, healthy ageing or sustainable management of our resources, to name but a few.

After ten years of action at EU level to develop and promote the role of science in society, at least one thing is very clear: we can only find the right answers to the challenges we face by involving as many stakeholders as possible in the research and innovation process. Research and innovation must respond to the needs and ambitions of society, reflect its values, and be responsible. To my mind, there are a number of keys to doing this.

The first key is to engage people and civil society organisations in the research and innovation process. We know that solutions to the grand challenges we face cannot be purely technological. Innovations also come from the creativity of nonspecialists and civil society organisations working with researchers, businesses and policy makers. Different perspectives bring different and, sometimes, better solutions.

All relevant actors should be on board, women as well as men. The second key, therefore, is ‘gender’. It is both unfair and economically unwise to squander any of our talents, female or male! We need women at all levels of the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselves if the gender perspective is relevant when developing products, processes and services.

Our economy needs more researchers and innovators, and an increasingly technological world means people need to be better informed about science issues. This is why the third key, excellent science education, is so important. We will educate more researchers, and the general public will be in a better position to understand and engage in debate on the most important science issues affecting society.

A fourth key is open access to scientific information and research results funded by public money. The fruits of publicly-funded research should be more easily available to other researchers and innovators. We are already

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10

testing an open access pilot under the 7th Framework Programme and will expand this approach under Horizon 2020.

The fifth key is ethics. Surveys have shown that the general public wants developments in research, technology and innovation to be guided by the principles of trust, integrity and participation. More specifically, people also want to be involved, where possible, in decisions regarding new technologies when cultural, environmental, social and ethical values come into play.

The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape a governance framework that encourages responsible research and innovation. Policymakers also have a responsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation, for example by using ethics reviews and audits, as we do in the 7th Framework Programme for Research.

We can only achieve all these goals if we have the help of stakeholders. That is why a forum for discussion like the “Science in Dialogue” conference is so important, so I would like to thank the Danish Presidency and the conference organisers for creating this event.

We have tried to engage as many stakeholders as possible in the development of our Horizon 2020 proposals. During the extensive public consultation, we received inputs from governments, research organisations, businesses, civil society organisations, policy-makers and individuals.

Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsible research and innovation that I just mentioned, and will highlight responsible research and societal engagement throughout the programme. We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizens talking and working together.

In addition, this summer, the Commission will propose a framework for the European Research Area where issues such as Open Access and Gender equality in research content will be addressed.

None of those initiatives would be possible without the commitment of the “Science in Society” community that has been growing in recent years.

I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogue conference, and we will do our best to integrate your good ideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsible research and innovation in Europe!

Thank you.

MÁIRE GEOGHEGAN-QUINN European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11

Conference Summary

by Conference Rapporteur Dr. JACK STILGOE, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter

Science is instinctively conversational. It is a conversation between what is known and what is unknown, between facts and ideas, between needs and possibilities. If science is to proceed responsibly, there must also, crucially, be a set of conversations with society more widely, about the risks, benefits, uncertainties and directions of science.

As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020, these conversations have never been more important. Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previous European framework programmes with its adoption of so-called ‘Grand Challenges’. Tackling these big societal problems, from food security to climate change, from healthy ageing to clean energy, require new policies and new forms of dialogue at European and Member State levels, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in research and innovation processes, as Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message.

It is appropriate that our conversations took place in Denmark – a country that, though it doesn’t like to boast, nevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogue about a range of policy issues, not least those involving science and technology. Opening the conference, Morten Østergaard, the Danish Minister for Science, Innovation and Higher Education, eloquently described the need to shift our thinking towards “the best science for the world” and not just “the best science in the world”.

Responsible Research and InnovationThe conference took as its focus the idea of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. While there is still plenty to do in terms of working out what this means in practice, the phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debate. Conferences on ‘science and society’ have in the past suffered from a lack of focus. Some participants come to discuss science in schools. Others expect to hear about science museums while others are interested in how we govern science and innovation themselves. At this conference in Odense, the emphasis was clearly on the latter.

A stellar cast of speakers, ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporate representatives and policymakers, described their insights and experiences of trying to make research and innovation more responsible. We heard how debates about technologies including genetically modified crops, stem cells, nanotechnology and synthetic biology had revealed a huge amount about the social context of science, although, as Richard Sclove discussed, we should not obsess about particular technologies. The issues that are revealed when we initiate and encourage such dialogue are essentially political. They are about what world we want to live in and how science and innovation can play a role in bringing it about.

As EU policymakers rethink their approach to research and innovation, they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogic relationship between science and society. Maja Horst, who has been involved in a number of Danish dialogue exercises, reminded the conference how far we had come in relatively little time. The culture of science is stubborn, and yet the way in which science is discussed now, by policymakers, scientists and others, has changed remarkably over the last 30 years.

Comment made via iPad during the conference

NGO’s, innovators and busi nesses should work together to address the grand challen ges with meaningful products. Citizens should go beyond their consumer role and exercise their citizens’ rights in science and technology

How could funding programs be constructed to further responsibility in research and innovation?Question made via iPad during the conference

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12

There is now a widespread appreciation that science is too important to be left to scientists alone. Scientists increasingly recognise that members of the public and civil society are not only legitimate voices in the debate, but they may also be useful resources for inspiring and motivating research and innovation. Linda Nielsen told the conference that 30 years ago many scientists were uninterested in, or dismissive of, questions of ethics. Most now recognise that it underpins their licence to operate.

We must not be complacent, however. As Andy Stirling explained, what might look at first like an open dialogue can disguise attempts to close down public debate. There is still work to be done in persuading those policymakers that remain sceptical that dialogue can open up new possibilities. Stirling and Alan Irwin both used the example of wind turbines, which began as a dissident

industry in Denmark, addressing a particular societal need. But over time, with the support of policy, wind energy has grown into an important source of competitive advantage for the country.

Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of Responsible Re search and Innovation. The idea is that we can respons ibly shape research and innovation to take better care of the future. What this means in practice will be very different across different areas of research and in different national contexts. It is not the sort of thing that can be imposed on scientists from the top down. Instead, it needs to be nurtured from the bottom up.

The conference provided an important forum in which to start this process. There is always a danger on such occasions that discussions narrow down to those who have been asked to speak and a vocal minority in the audience. Thankfully we had some innovative opportunities to broaden things out. First, participants could contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPads that peppered the hall. The questions and insights that came through electronically were refreshingly honest. People were clear about what they wanted from the conference and what was missing. Secondly, the conference had at its centre a set of day-long workshops. These provided an opportunity for participants to collaboratively shape a Responsible Research and Innovation agenda.

The workshop outputs, as can be seen on pages 24-40, are wide-ranging but they are concrete, rigorous and should be of interest to a range of policymakers.

Who should be responsible for developing institutions for bringing stakeholders together? Is this a national or collective European obligation?Question made via iPad during the conference

Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper, BBC, demonstrating the iPads

Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13

Under its Science and Society programme, the European Commission has supported a diverse range of activities that have immeasurably strengthened the dialogue between science and society. The conference heard from initiatives such as the Living Knowledge network of science shops, which has, on a meagre budget, begun to change the culture of European universities and enable new forms of research. We heard from the MASIS project (Monitoring Activities in Science in Society), which has surveyed the European policy landscape. The map is varied. When it comes to public engagement with science in Europe, there are areas of lush, fertile ground and there are deserts. In those countries where dialogue is well-embedded, such as the UK and Denmark, new questions have been injected into public debate. These questions are typically about the products, processes and purposes of research, the questions that define what Responsible Research and Innovation look like.

The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion of responsiveness – the ability of individuals and institutions to do things differently in the light of social and ethical concerns, needs and ambitions. The challenge is now to organise policy and research to offer answers to questions of responsibility and to better anchor science and innovation activities in society. Some of the key messages from the conference in this regard were:

– The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation which emphasises science’s social responsibility should be widely used in the development of Horizon 2020.

– Europe needs to promote science education, make scientific knowledge more accessible and promote gender equality in science and innovation.

– Stakeholders in society should be consulted in the prioritisation of research agendas. Research agendas should reflect the values, expectations and concerns of citizens and civil society.

– Society’s innovation capacity can be improved through public-private cooperation and the involvement of citizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge.

– Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperation between science, innovation and stakeholders in society such as the public sector and NGOs.

– Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility to view their research and innovation in a societal context.

Should Responsible Research and Innovation be promoted through topdown regulation or peertopeer processes?Question made via iPad during the conference

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14

Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux. New models, processes and experiments are emerging that are already forcing a rethink. In pharmaceuticals, Peter Høngaard Andersen told us about the breakdown of the established model of innovation as a “pipeline”. Carolin Kranz told us how BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities as a leading nanotechnology innovator. The consensus was that emerging models of open and inclusive innovation offered an opportunity to rethink, to put responsibility at the heart of research and development, although there was recognition that it was easier to have the discussion within a university than at a company.

As the European community gears up to launch Horizon 2020 in 2013, many people – many more than populated this conference – will take an interest in its approach. The conference was populated by people who have worked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue about science and innovation. The relatively meagre budgets that have been allocated to Science and Society work have paid dividends. But there is a growing ambition and expectation that this now has to move beyond just words.

The assumption remains that ethics, social responsibility and public dialogue would act as speed bumps on the road to progress. This conference suggested an alternative view: that they were a way of opening up new possibilities for innovation. In short, if the EU is interested in growing a “Smart, sustainable, inclusive economy”, it must ask itself what smart, sustainable, inclusive research and innovation look like.

The grand challenge-approach to research and innovation that is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 brings new responsibilities. Taking grand challenges seriously could mean a radically new approach to funding and governing research and innovation. It will require new forms of dialogue between science and society as well as between disparate communities of scientists. And it will require extensive technology assessment, blending social and technical considerations. How radical are we willing to be?

One obvious conclusion from this conference should be that scienceinsociety activities should be extremely strong in Horizon 2020 Comment made via iPad during the conference

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16

WORKSHOP 1Learning from DialogueBetween Science and its Publics

Workshop chair MAJA HORST, Head of the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen

Workshop speakers JEAN-PIERRE ALIX, Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society

SØREN HARNOW KLAUSEN, Professor, dr. phil., University of Southern Denmark and the Danish Council for Independent Research – Humanities

ALEXANDER GERBER, Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centre for Science and Innovation Communication

Workshop report by Head of Section Anders Kania Rømer, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.

The first workshop looked back on recent experiences of public dialogue around science and technology to ask what we could learn and what work remained to be done. Maja Horst opened the workshop with an overview of her insights into public engagement exercises. She reflected on experiments in public engagement, including her own installations, placed in public spaces and designed to elicit views on stem cell research. Horst argued that public engagement should be viewed positively by scientists, as a resource.

Jean-Pierre Alix and Søren Harnow Klausen described the ESF (European Science Foundation) Member Organisation Forum on Science in Society. The main purpose of the Forum is to map science-in-society activities to inform future developments. One conclusion is that, at the European level, there is a need for surveys to establish best practice, greater commitment and greater capacity to share experience and expertise. There is also a need for new ways to measure science and society activities that are extremely diverse.

The practice of public engagement should therefore run alongside science-in-society research. Both presenters and workshop chair recognised the need to describe and evaluate public engagement activities, but also the challenges in doing so, given the range of activities and expectations.

Alexander Gerber gave a presentation on the move from dissemination to deliberation in science, and the extent to which this is or is not embedded in scientific practice. As a precondition for change, Gerber emphasised that some of the structures, such as funding, incentives and governance, which have solidified over centuries need to be challenged by science policy makers. Transparency could increase credibility and authenticity, which over time will lead to public trust. The media need to embrace evidence-based reporting and scientists have to admit when they are uncertain and communicate both positive and negative results instead of reporting only the good news. Scientists also have to be trained to use the new social media platforms. Gerber finished by asking whether a dialogue between science and society would even be necessary if science actually was an integral part of society itself.

The discussion that followed the presentations brought up some further challenges. First, it was acknowledged that some areas of science are more exciting than others. Engagement will look very different across disciplines. Following this, should we be expecting or encouraging researchers from all disciplines to engage in such dialogue equally? Second, it is clear that knowledge is now available to the public from many directions, particularly online. Public engagement with science is therefore happening in all sorts of disorganised ways alongside the organised activities. Third, the issue of private funding was discussed. One comment was that many science-in-society activities are already privately funded, and it was important to learn from the privately funded activities and to cooperate on future initiatives. Finally, there was a discussion of the representativeness of public engagement processes and of the ethical responsibilities towards members of the public that are taking part.

See the suggestions produced by the participants in this workshop on pages 24-27.

SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

PAGE 17

WORKSHOP 2 Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Workshop chair JACK STILGOE, Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

Workshop speakers ŽANETA OZOLINA, Professor at Department of Political Science, University of Latvia

CAROLIN KRANZ, Senior Manager at Communications & Government Relations, BASF

Workshop report by Head of Section Thomas Trøst Hansen, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.

This workshop opened with presentations from Jack Stilgoe, Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina. Stilgoe outlined an emerging framework for responsible innovation, explaining how discourse had moved from public understanding of science, through public engagement, then on to upstream engagement. Stilgoe offered a clarification of some of the key concepts used within the topic of the workshop, starting out with responsibility. Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibility being defined in terms of care, responsiveness, collectiveness and by being forward-looking. This definition stands in opposition to a concept of responsibility being based on a retrospective view of accountability and liability. He presented the case of geoengineering (which is the idea of engineering the global climate, particularly through reflecting sunlight).The discussion that followed centred on the complexities of geoengineering as a scientific, social, ethical and democratic issue.

Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASF’s approach to nanotechnology. She started out by introducing BASF’s new company strategy “We create chemistry”. In the strategy the important pillars are innovation and sustainability. Nanotechnology is seen as a key enabling technology in various products. However, it is also a technology that poses various challenges in relation to safety, regulation and public concern. At an early stage of the development of nanotechnology, BASF introduced a Code of Conduct for nanotechnology, participated in safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-

holders. Dr.Kranz pointed out that, in order to make innovation happen, there needs to be an adequate and proportionate regulatory framework. Furthermore, she stated that there is no innovation without any risk. The presentation gave rise to a number of comments on how to deal with conflicts of interest when companies simultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processes and lobbyists in relation to regulation. Moreover, companies are often empowered by a monopoly of information on the products that should be regulated. These comments were debated in the light of how to establish a trustful relation to stakeholders, given these conditions.

Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a need for new models of science governance. This need stems from an increasing complexity due to globalisation and the ensuing rapid transformations. The new models should acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the field of science. In the future there will be more participants in the science domain, including states/policy makers, media, scientists, communities, international bodies and the development of new stakeholders. She went on to state that the scientific community needs to consider how it should open itself towards this growing number of stakeholders. She suggested that this could happen through a series of interactions between scientists and society, scientists and scientists and scientists and politicians.

The subsequent discussion focused on how to handle the growing frustrations between scientists and politi cians. It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communities and how this could be opposed.

The second part of the workshop began with a discussion of responsibility and governance. There was general support for thinking about responsibility in terms of collectiveness and intentionality. Some participants suggested that ethics should be thought contextually and should be embedded in institutions, codes and practices. In smaller groups, participants identified a number of challenges, issues or questions. They asked how emerging technologies appeared to be changing what it means to be human. They asked how ethics might be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself science, human enhancement and intellectual property tangles. They discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis and how human rights can be part of science and innovation.



PAGE 18

WORKSHOP 3 Inclusive and Open Innovation

Workshop chair ARIE RIP, Professor at Centre for Studies of Science, Tecnology and Society, University of Twente

Workshop speakers LARS KLÜVER, Director of Secretariat, Danish Board of Technology

INÉS SÁNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA, Professor and Head of Unit, Women and Science Unit, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Cabinet of the Minister

PRATEEK SUREKA, Researcher, Big Innovation Centre

Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug, Adviser, Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research.

The workshop explored the potential for opening up innovation processes. The discussions evolved around three overarching aspects: the notion of open and inclusive innovation; ways of structuring open and inclusive innovation processes; and suggestions and input to how open and inclusive innovation processes can be included in a future Responsible Research and Innovation RRI framework.

As remarked by the chair of the work shop, Arie Rip, innovation can both be viewed as a business model as well as a collective good. It is by nature new and uncertain, distributed, and interactive with inherent mutual dependencies. There was consensus on the fact that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from society. The eventual success of an innovation depends on its uptake and diffusion. As Lars Klüver stated, future markets for innovation reflect societal needs. It is important to not limit the notion of innovation to the production and development of commodities, as a large share of innovation is related to state sectors. As emphasised by Klüver, when involved in agenda-setting phases and asked about their visions and future needs, most of the public will not respond by identifying specific products, but rather present views on welfare and “the good life”. Experience shows that most citizens are highly able to in fact articulate their future needs, even if they are not updated on the latest technological developments.

Open and inclusive innovation takes into account the nature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders

and potential users in several stages of the innovation process. Inclusive innovation is about broadening innovation by including more aspects and/or more actors. Inclusion provides accountability, purpose, diversity, and relevance. The effects of open and inclusive innovation may be new business models, as presented by Prateek Sureka, higher acceptance of and trust in new products and new solutions, better and more competitive solutions and a better public understanding of research and innovation.

The discussions on how to structure open and inclusive innovation processes referred to various models and participatory methods for engaging stakeholders. Increasing diversity is a particular challenge. Inés Sánches de Madariaga pointed out the striking fact that women are still underrepresented in innovation processes in spite of their general overrepresentation at graduate and post-graduate levels. Also, studies show that gender aspects are missing in many innovation processes and, thus, innovation results subsequently target male realities.

Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stages, that is, when we start to discuss what we want to innovate about. Open innovation plays out in different phases with different levels (societal level, programme level, project level or process level), focusses and outcomes.

After the presentations, the chair asked the workshop participants to reflect on whether there is a need for a framework for responsible research and innovation. There was general agreement that some form of framework would certainly contribute to open and inclusive innovation, and that such a framework requires institutional and cultural change. Some participants expressed the view that we should take the opportunity to establish such a framework with a new European programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020, emerging. There was also general agreement that any positive changes to open innovation or responsible research and innovation require a re-visiting of the European Research Area and European institutions. The discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusive innovation with addressing grand challenges. It was pointed out that the Innovation Union continues to operate within present structures, but if we want to create open innovation, we have to create new partnerships that current structures do not allow.



PAGE 19


Workshop chair ANDY STIRLING, Professor at Sussex University, STEPS – Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability

Workshop speakers KAARE CHRISTENSEN, Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research Center, University of Southern Denmark


ROBBERT DROOP, Policy Coordinator, Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

Workshop report by Special Adviser David Budtz Pedersen, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.

This workshop opened with presentations from Andy Stirling, Kaare Christensen, Hans Müller Pedersen and Robbert Droop. Stirling described the substantive benefits of public dialogue in improving decision making. Done well, public dialogue opens up and informs political debate about alternatives. It points to the many possible ways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins and other forms of closure less likely. Dialogue is one of many ways (others include collaborative research and interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas and increasing diversity.

Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageing populations. There has been a vast rise in life-expectancy in almost all European countries. This poses new challenges for research, including normative questions of strategies for living longer and in better health. Priorities in research, however, are highly sensitive to the “definition” of health and disease. Here, engaging stakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges. Self-report (users generating data and reporting them via for instance smart phones) in new medical treatments and decisions of health intervention need to engage older people and recognise how “engagement” also changes in different stages of life. Christensen made the point

that there needs to be a balance between high technology and low technology solutions. The latter are often more important than science policy discussions would suggest.

Hans Müller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020, a basis for prioritising strategic research programmes in Denmark with input from key stakeholders such as authorities, universities and business organisations on the basis of several consultations. RESEARCH2020 is an attempt to establish a reference point for research policy debate in a systematic and transparent fashion. This means that the formulation and design of strategic research policies is not solely a matter for politicians and ministers. Hans Müller Pedersen argued that stakeholder participation can make for better decisions and that stakeholder involvement in agenda setting should help enhance knowledge production, enhance innovation and improve how science addresses grand challenges. Participatory methods can turn the attention of research communities towards important societal challenges. Participatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogue or multiple stage approach where consultation of the public, private stakeholders, universities, and NGOs is combined with expert-based workshops and scenarios.

Robbert Droop described how, in European research and development policy, stakeholders are often equated just with industry. Public participation was lacking in agenda-setting in the Seventh Framework Programme. Companies must be involved, but we can also to a large degree make use of what is happening in society. Leading companies have bright ideas, they are creative, and policy should look more closely at them. That said, you cannot expect companies to rethink their processes in such a way that they cease to exist. Stakeholders should be involved in “chain action”, according to Droop. That means that policy makers should be better at creating partnerships – and hence building more trust – between private companies and between public and private stakeholders – but only where there are options of marketability, which continues to be the most important criterion for entrepreneurs.

There was discussion on whether participation could be a more general model for future shaping policies for Europe – not only in the domain of research policies. But politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives. Participation also brings questions about trans-parency, trust and accountability. It was also pointed out that there is a danger of “pseudo-legitimisation” when using participation methods.



PAGE 20


Workshop chair STINA VRANG ELIAS, CEO of Danish think tank DEA

Workshop speakers MARK DUBOIS, Ph.D. at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University and GAP2 participant

PIERRE-BENOIT JOLY, Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA), France

Workshop report by Senior Consultant Line Gry Knudsen, DEA

The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina Vrang Elias, Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly. Stina Vrang Elias gave her view of how evidence was used in education policy. She argued that it was rare to find knowledge properly used in the development of education systems. Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lot of debate, but politicians still tend to base policies on ideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidence. So we still have many young people leaving elementary school without proper reading skills. The field of school development is based on “gut feeling”, conventional wisdom, and the beliefs of the politicians. Also, evidence of what works or doesn’t works is lacking in certain areas. On the perennial question of class size, for example, we still do not have good evidence of whether the number of students is more important than the teacher skills.

Mark Dubois presented GAP2 – a Europe-wide project that brings together fishermen and researchers from across the continent to help inform and shape policy – and described how fishermen often challenge researchers’ knowledge and how they are often suspicious of researchers on their boats. Fishery management is about human behaviour, trying to find

ways to make fishermen fish responsibly. Mark Dubois argued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships, conducted in practical ways by researchers and fishermen together, integrating local knowledge with scientific knowledge. This means confronting current power relationships, sharing responsibility and empowering groups to take part. Dubois’s presentation prompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration, the identification of “stakeholders”, contested definitions of sustainability and the appropriate level (European, national, local, etc.) for the development and application of new models. Dubois underlined that the development of new models is not about creating ways of regulation but of creating trust through collaboration.

Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctions between facts and values, and between knowledge and power. The relationships between knowledge and policy making need to be mediated through public debate. Politicians may transgress the borders of scientific knowledge, for example in risk management. The case of nuclear waste management provided some important lessons. First, the need for open discussion of the ways in which issues are framed. Second, the question of what counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision. And third, the importance of reversibility as a way to articulate these concerns. Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientific experts have the role of producing reliable knowledge and exploring socio-technical issues, and he concluded that improving the relationship between knowledge production and policy making is key. He was questioned on the arms-length principle in connection with cooperation between politicians and researchers and underlined that researchers have the role of “framing” issues, allowing for better political decisions afterwards. Joly also pointed out that evidence based policy is only applicable in certain areas. The following discussion centred on the limits of a narrow view of “evidence-based policy making”, the multiple roles for scientific expertise and the various ways in which it can be organised, and whether the relationship between research and politics should be based on top-down or bottom-up processes.



PAGE 21

PAGE 22

Introduction to the workshop suggestions

During part 2 of the workshops, the participants were asked to define what they saw as challenges within the workshop topic based on the previous presentations and discussion. Each workshop was then split up into smaller groups (5-6 people), and each group was asked to identify, describe and suggest ways to tackle a particular challenge.

The key conference theme was ‘dialogue’, and the workshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes. Each suggestion was built up around some pre-defined questions, but otherwise focus was fully on the thoughts and ideas brought to the table by the participants.

As with any summary of intensive, wide-ranging dis-cussions, there are many gaps to be filled in. Never-theless, the suggestions may serve two important purposes. First, they should remind attendees of the scope of discussion and suggested future directions. Second, they may inspire other interested parties who were unable to attend the conference to act or think in new ways.

Some of the challenges and suggestions described focus on the practice of dialogue. Some use lessons from public dialogue to recommend particular policy actions. Others take specific emerging issues such as food security or human enhancement and describe how they might be approached in a dialogic way.

The workshop discussions were deep and focussed. They allowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudes that are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society. The recommendations therefore provide a sharp view of issues such as incentives, vested interests and power structures that are often overlooked in more general arguments for wider dialogue. The hope is that they can stimulate new conversations, new policy directions and new research.

On the following pages you will find all the suggestions produced during the workshop sessions. They have been left unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like) and should not be seen as official statements from the conference, but rather as the fruit of a few hours’ dedicated work by the conference participants.

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23

At what point in the research process should researchers engage in dialogue with the public? Is it possible to do so before research results are known? Or should scientists involve the public in the research process?

Name and description of suggestion/course of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research. The public could have influence on formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research. During the research process, there is less interest in dialogue with the public, but once research results are available, the public could be involved again, to define the fields in which the results could be applied.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?The benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known and understood by the public. This could facilitate funding and create trust. Scientists can benefit from public involvement as the public can provide valuable information, for example in the field of medicine/diagnosis. Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies, e.g. policy makers, decision makers and funding agencies. This openness can also lead to generating new ideas in scientific fields. The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on in scientific research and a feeling of involvement. A sense of mutual responsibility and trust between the public and researchers could be developed. There is also an ethical dimension in the selection of fields of application.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Scientists, research teams and institutions, science communicators, representatives of the public, media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the action and the context.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed? It can be implemented at any time. Main obstacles would be time and money, also interest from both sides, the scientists and the public. The involvement of all relevant institutions (research institutions, labs, industry, NGOs) is also needed.

What are the cost implications? The process mainly needs people's time and effort. Additional costs depend on the chosen method.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together? Stakeholder dialogue should be open. The presentation of topics needs to be made more "sexy" and designed with the target group in mind.

WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24

The public does not necessarily have a technical understanding of science. With this in mind, how can a meaningful dialogue about science and technology issues be developed?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: An iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of each other’s viewpoint. A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates who occupy the boundary between the actors. There is a difference between such intermediates and traditional science communicators in that the intermediates should not only be able to transfer knowledge and viewpoints from scientists to the public but also from the public to the science and technology community. It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that it takes time before a mutual understanding is reached.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?From the public’s standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science is important as a means to address societal problems. For the scientists the dialogue will give them awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live in the infamous ivory tower. Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trust. This can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to move quickly and perhaps without consultation. The development of such a process would represent a paradigm shift. Whereas science and society have been two separate entities until now, the implementation of this iterative process will create a situation where dialogue is an integral part of the scientific method. This has an immense amount of added value in that science is now embedded into society’s culture.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Everybody. However, there must be a political and economic will.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?An institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actors. NGOs could perhaps be involved.

What are the cost implications?As what we are suggesting is quite drastic, the costs would be substantial. However, the technology and the expertise already exist. Perhaps the idea could be tried out as a pilot project and the success otherwise examined.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Any initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation process. Also official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25

The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embedded in society, and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisite for scientific responsibility. In fact, it is the role of the public to make scientists responsible. Scientists have to learn this.

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Promoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research into scientific institutions. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral part of the scientific process.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Make the RRI concept a natural/integral part of the scientific practice and thinking. The benefit is more responsible science and less regulation, including fewer control mechanisms.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Research institutions, individual researchers, members of national parliaments, governments, media.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Now, and the process can be improved over time.

What are the cost implications?Horizon 2020 should include substantial funding for participatory mechanisms promoting RRI.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Stakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders.


We talk about bringing the public to science but maybe we should change the discourse to bringing science to the public Comment made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26

How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialogue with the public?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: – Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their research – Identifying real passion (scientists’ understanding of the public) – Assessing and rewarding two-way communication – Motivation through success

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?– Enables two-way communication – Benefit to scientists: it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attention – Benefit to institutions (e.g. university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared

to other institutions

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Communication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-way communication) – and scientists, naturally.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?It could start now on a small scale. Good examples will benefit further development.

What are the cost implications?It takes time and time is money. Specific costs depend on specific projects implemented.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Science communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in which all nations want to partake in their own way. Nations can choose to implement two-way dialogue in any way they choose and involve stakeholders who are relevant to their own cultural contexts. This is also dependent on the public level of awareness of science.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27

How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologies are changing people and relationships at the individual and collective level (person, community, institution, State, global level)?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Reframing individual/collective consciousness – through education systems, media, institutions and the organisation of ethics committees.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Increased self-awareness and better connection between individuals and collectivity would provide stronger forces against manipulation by new technologies.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Framework programmes for research, educational institutions, media. Also, the specific organisation of institutions should be considered.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Both. Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems.

What are the cost implications?It could start on a small scale as an experiment in several communities (real and virtual).

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?This is an implicit part of the proposal.

WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28

How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includes ethical and/or safety considerations but at the same time leaves room for innovation?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Embedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessing the outcome of the research and development process.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Avoiding the risk of developing a product that infringes ethical norms and is rejected by society.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Responsibility must be shared between the research and development institution, a national-level scientific authority and civil society, all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethical conduct. For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?It could be implemented in the near future, since the periodical assessment system is typically already in place.

What are the cost implications?No extra costs, as the procedures already in place could simply be expanded.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Different actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment.


These discussions often call for responsibility of the abstract “science” as such or of the individual scientist. What about the responsi bility of the research institutions? Question made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet with nine billion people pose?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Suppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefits. This will reduce the amount of waste produced. Supply chains, including in particular transport, need to be optimised, which requires innovative use of new technologies. Options for more systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered. These market incentives should be combined with ethical awareness-raising.

Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed – this could result in new technologies.

There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of natural resources. It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broader implications of our food choices (ethically, can we continue to eat as much meat as we do now?).

National capacities in agricultural science and related sectors should be strengthened, especially in the least developed countries.

At the most general level, there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model based not on deficit but on balance.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Environmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?The UN system, businesses, governments (through regulation).

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Some elements could be implemented now, some later.

What are the cost implications?Should in principle be largely self-financing.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?A global initiative could be an idea.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30

How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in the breakdown/operationalisation of the grand societal challenges, thereby securing the involvement of citizens and business? In the attempts to solve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research community and also look at regulatory issues, cultural issues and labour.

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Each grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will be organised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industry that gives priorities and suggestions to specific problems and research topics that should be addressed. The steering committee is obliged to give feedback and response on how the recommendations are met. Also, for each grand challenge room should be made for experiments/small projects especially for SMEs.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?The funded research projects will have a larger impact.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?The European Union, Member States, researchers, citizens, NGOs, industry.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Now - as soon as the overall structure of Horizon 2020 is known. Examples and methods already exist at national level. There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs.

What are the cost implications?A very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (0.01 per cent, maybe).

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?This is the challenge, but it is doable as the methods are well established.

WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31

Under conditions of uncertainty, how can businesses develop new business models that are more open and inclusive while at the same time protect their assets?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: – A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness

in different stages of development are needed. – Articulate, clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involved.– Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance framework.– Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefits.– Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadership.– Limit the use of consultants.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Organisations and societies will both benefit. It will lead to socially robust and responsible innovation, increase productivity and reduce uncertainties.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Policy makers, innovators, industry, academia and stakeholders in society, including the public.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?It could be implemented now, but the suggestion needs more deliberation.

What are the cost implications?Costs are uncertain due to the large number of variables involved.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Transparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders.


How can the business sector be motivated to participate in public debates and dialogues on science and society? Question made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32

How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovations that can help solve society’s grand challenges and take into account important perspectives of gender, sustainability, etc. be promoted?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Open innovation platform.

– The case of innovations that are not financially viable (e.g. medicine for very small groups): expanded partnerships (e.g. for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships could be established.

– Coupling innovation with regulations (e.g. LED light vs. light bulb). – Research proposals should explain how and to what extent sex and gender analysis is relevant

to the intended project, stimulating exploration across the usual organisational boundaries.– Platform for cooperation across institutions: potential role for bringing different actors

together in order to solve very complex problems.– The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including

philanthropists).

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Making open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improving quality while at the same time addressing social challenges. Improving applicability by taking factors such as gender into account.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Many actors, see above.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Both. In some forms the model possibly already exists. The EU and Member States need to change practices to mainstream.

What are the cost implications?Potentially small compared to research costs - it depends on the level of formality.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?This should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33

How can vested interests be overcome?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: – Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also

for overcoming vested interests.– Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interests.– Include stakeholder involvement in research proposals.– Make better use of research instruments (e.g. outreach requirements).– Work with/subvert dominant rhetorics.– Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Better interaction between science and society, technology that is developed in a more responsible manner.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?The European Commission, national research councils, university associations, networks of Chief Scientific Officers or networks of interfaces between science and society.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?More case studies need to be done, the other actions mean strengthening or expanding existing options.

What are the cost implications?No additional funding for research, just different allocation.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Have conferences with various stakeholders.

WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendas and Creating Visions for European Futures WS4

Responsible Research and Inno vation is about allocating tasks and roles: risks should not only be addressed by scientists, normative issues not only by ethicists, and above all, innovation not only by economists, otherwise we can forget about being able to address the grand challenges Comment made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34

How to define which stakeholders and how many to include in engagement processes? How to establish open processes that can still lead to focused decisions?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: – Think of engagement as a process with different stages– Build robust relations with stakeholder groups– Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focus– There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter later– Accept that some questions are by definition broad (e.g. ageing)

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Results will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Those involved in promoting engagement activities.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?It is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities.

What are the cost implications?Should be cost neutral – or may actually save money over the duration of the project.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Everyone can learn from everyone’s experience.


If noncommercial solutions to grand challenges are to be facilitated through shared ownership, the EU has to be open towards shared financing of activities, for example by giving room for codevelopment of actions, including cofinancing with private foundations Comment made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35

– How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing the diversity of cultures (democracy, traditions, values and disciplines) be identified?

– How is it possible to balance interest, including those poorly or not organised?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Consultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOs and other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpoints of the “poorly” organised should be implemented.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Transparency, enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public research spending in Europe. And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectations of stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of future European programmes for research and innovation on the other.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?The European Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission. And Member States’ authorities as well as research institutions, social and cultural movements and NGOs.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?In principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so. If further investigation is needed, a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practices and effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society.

What are the cost implications?Consultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusive. Besides that there could be a need for public funding to NGOs and socio-cultural movements.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?It is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best framework conditions for those involved.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36

How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Discussion procedure should be defined. Communication abilities should be developed. Checkpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up. Evaluation criteria should be defined. Expert opinions should be heard.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?The development of legitimacy and trust.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?The political system and other relevant bodies.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?It can be implemented now. Awareness and political commitment are needed.

What are the cost implications?Primarily time.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Incentives are necessary to ensure this.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37

Dialogue should ensure better societal value for science funding Comment made via iPad during the conference

How can credibility in the relationship between research and politics be established?

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: To build credibility, the following steps should be taken: – careful management of the issues – identifying stakeholders – identifying and validating the experts (setting standards) – acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledge – handling value conflicts – building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Better informed political choices and decisions. Connecting the parties involved.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Researchers and the political system.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?In principle now, but it is an ongoing process.

What are the cost implications?Time, bureaucracy and institutional boundaries. A political will is needed.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Ensure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagement of all parties.

WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38

The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientific uncertainty. The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature of scientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians.

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: Create dialogue between research and politics.

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?Creating a common language for scientists and policy makers where the different goals and interests are made explicit. For example, policy makers may have to satisfy a range of different stakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time.

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Policy makers, scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Implementation would be possible now.

What are the cost implications?Expenses for independent mediators or consultant agencies.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?An independent mediator should coordinate the process.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39

The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexity, make decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demands for knowledge/solutions.

Name and description of suggestion/course of action: – Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency, openness,

system dynamics, risks, complexity: “there is no simple answer...”).– Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problem/topic

as well as a diversity of solutions in different contexts. – Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection, adaptive

management (no regret options, precautionary principle, resilience, learning...). – “Total immersion” – learning about other people’s perspective and context, switch jobs

between politicians and researchers, making this part of young people’s training ...

What is the benefit of overcoming the challenge?– People will understand that researchers do not have all the answers and get a better

understanding of what is achievable. A positive image of uncertainty and openness will be created. Credibility of science will be improved.

– Diversity supports creativity and innovation. – Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems, incorporating change. – A better understanding of each other in different communities

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestion?Researchers, politicians, media, the education system.

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed?Implementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked.

What are the cost implications?No answer given.

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would they work together?Very hard to say – it depends on the context.


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40

PAGE 41

Supported by:

Science in Dialogue - RRITrends

Documents