Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jack-stilgoe |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 142
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 242
PREFACEby Morten Oslashstergaard Danish Ministerfor Science Innovation and Higher Education 3
ABOUT THE CONFERENCE 4
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS 6
MESSAGE DELIVERED AT THE CONFERENCEby Maacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn European Commissionerfor Research Innovation and Science 10
CONFERENCE SUMMARYby Jack Stilgoe conference rapporteur 12
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 17
WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Scienceand its Publics
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WORKSHOP 5A 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 sidfidk
Videos pictures and other conference documentationcan be seen at wwwscienceindialoguedk
CONTENTS
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 342
The Best Science for the World
Research and innovation activities do not exist in avacuum Rather they are part of society and have ahuge influence on the way we act think and organiseour communities at both local and global levels ndash as wellas an enormous impact on our ability to create prosperityand progress This means that there is a need to discussthe role we would like science to play in society ndash andthe role we would like society to play in science Weneed to shift the focus from aspiring to creating the bestscience in the world to aspiring to creating the bestscience for the world
The presidency conference ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo marked
a welcome and needed shift in this direction Under thesubheading ldquoTowards a European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovationrdquo the conference did exactlythat ndash discuss how the relationship between science andsociety can be strengthened and become more productiveto the benefit of both science and society
While dialogue and cooperation are in themselves greatand can help improve our understanding of complexissues or our grasp of ethical dilemmas the ideaof responsible research and innovation is also aboutincreasing the quality of our investments in science
The probability of scientific results being relevant robustand having a positive impact on society will increaseif a sense of scientific social responsibility and respons-iveness to societyrsquos concerns and wishes can be fosteredndash and increased dialogue is one way of achieving this
The same is true when we talk about the large amount ofresearch and innovation that is carried out in the privatesector The likelihood of new products and technologiesbeing successful increases if they are developed onthe basis of a sound understanding of public needs andconcerns As such an open and inclusive approach basedon dialogue between different sectors will help Europe
heighten its innovative capacity
I was pleased to see that representatives of manydifferent sectors had found their way to Denmark forthe conference ndash industry universities science com-municators civil society organisations authoritiesand political bodies An important message fromthe conference was the need to promote cooperationbetween different sectors
Another key message was the need to embed the conceptof responsible research and innovation at the politicallevel Much can be done at this level to enhance theresponsibility aspect in the way we approach and builda framework around research and innovation Possibleways of doing so could be to consult stakeholders via
public consultation when we identify research areas ofstrategic importance to make public access to researchresults a precondition for EU funding or to invite actorsfrom different sectors of society to participate in advisorygroups when governance structures of research fundingprogrammes are being developed
On 31 May 2012 the Danish Presidency obtaineda general agreement in the European Council on thestructure and main line of activities in the next Europeanfunding programme for research and innovation ndashHorizon 2020 The agreement defines the relationshipbetween science and society and the promotion of
Responsible Research and Innovation as one of thecross-cutting issues in the programme In the comingyear the particularities of Horizon 2020 will be fleshedout This is a great opportunity to anchor the concept ofsciencersquos social responsibility in a concrete frameworkI strongly believe that the idea of science and societybeing connected by a mutual responsibility is somethingthat should not be limited to certain scientific disciplinesRather it should be a foundation that permeates allactivities in research and innovation As such I wouldencourage a final lay-out of Horizon 2020 that promotesthis line of thinking across the whole framework pro-
gramme
While much can be done at organisational and structurallevels to foster responsible research and innovationI would like to stress that the mindset of responsibilitystarts with the individual researcher or innovator Wehave come a long way in past years but there is still roomfor improvement The quality and relevance of researchin areas such as new medicine or sustainable energywill be heightened if research is carried out in dialoguewith the end users of new technologies with authoritiesand with stakeholders Informal platforms such asscience shops consultation or public meetings between
researchers private companies and the wider societycould be developed to this end
I encourage researchers to engage in society to beopen to dialogue and to have an eye for public concernsand ambitions ndash all with the ambition of building betterscience for the world
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARDDanish Minister for ScienceInnovation and Higher Education
PREFACE
PAGE 3
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 442
Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES
The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at EuroscienceOpen Forum 2014 in Copenhagen
From 21-26 June 2014 international researchers policymakers studentsentrepreneurs and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take partin ESOF 2014 Europersquos largest general science conference
The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model ofResponsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactionsto the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally
For futher information visit wwwesof2014org
The conference ldquoScience in Dialogue ndash Towards aEuropean Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vationrdquo took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as partof the Danish EU Presidency
The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Higher Education with assistancefrom the think tank DEA It was hosted by the Universityof Southern Denmark in Odense
A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participatedin the conference and more than 35 highly qualifiedspeakers had been invited to speak or debate at the
conference The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples fromvarious sectors such as government universitiesindustry NGOs and science communication
Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of theconference and the conference format itself supportedthis During all plenary sessions iPads were distributedto the conference participants This allowed them to
easily take part in the panel debates by typing commentsand questions that everybody in the auditorium could seeand respond to which ensured a high level of interactionbetween the conference participants and panellists orspeakers
iPads were also used as a working tool during theworkshops that took place on the second conference dayThis made it possible for the workshop participants tosplit up into small working groups while still exchangingknowledge and ideas within the large workshop group
No conference conclusions or recommendations had
been drafted before the conference and the workshopswere designed to let the conference participants developideas and suggestions for action within specific topicssuch as ethics and emerging technologies or engagingstakeholders in research agendas
The suggestions produced by the conference participantshave also been included in the conference report
About the conference
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 4
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 542
About the conference participants
Rest of the World
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
2
26
6
53
13
ere o you ve
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Private sector
Public research institution
Media
Government
7
4
11
48
3
26
n w c sector are you emp oye
When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants
ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can
ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society
ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research
ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country
ndash Beyond words
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 5
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 242
PREFACEby Morten Oslashstergaard Danish Ministerfor Science Innovation and Higher Education 3
ABOUT THE CONFERENCE 4
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS 6
MESSAGE DELIVERED AT THE CONFERENCEby Maacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn European Commissionerfor Research Innovation and Science 10
CONFERENCE SUMMARYby Jack Stilgoe conference rapporteur 12
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 17
WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Scienceand its Publics
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WORKSHOP 5A 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 sidfidk
Videos pictures and other conference documentationcan be seen at wwwscienceindialoguedk
CONTENTS
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 342
The Best Science for the World
Research and innovation activities do not exist in avacuum Rather they are part of society and have ahuge influence on the way we act think and organiseour communities at both local and global levels ndash as wellas an enormous impact on our ability to create prosperityand progress This means that there is a need to discussthe role we would like science to play in society ndash andthe role we would like society to play in science Weneed to shift the focus from aspiring to creating the bestscience in the world to aspiring to creating the bestscience for the world
The presidency conference ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo marked
a welcome and needed shift in this direction Under thesubheading ldquoTowards a European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovationrdquo the conference did exactlythat ndash discuss how the relationship between science andsociety can be strengthened and become more productiveto the benefit of both science and society
While dialogue and cooperation are in themselves greatand can help improve our understanding of complexissues or our grasp of ethical dilemmas the ideaof responsible research and innovation is also aboutincreasing the quality of our investments in science
The probability of scientific results being relevant robustand having a positive impact on society will increaseif a sense of scientific social responsibility and respons-iveness to societyrsquos concerns and wishes can be fosteredndash and increased dialogue is one way of achieving this
The same is true when we talk about the large amount ofresearch and innovation that is carried out in the privatesector The likelihood of new products and technologiesbeing successful increases if they are developed onthe basis of a sound understanding of public needs andconcerns As such an open and inclusive approach basedon dialogue between different sectors will help Europe
heighten its innovative capacity
I was pleased to see that representatives of manydifferent sectors had found their way to Denmark forthe conference ndash industry universities science com-municators civil society organisations authoritiesand political bodies An important message fromthe conference was the need to promote cooperationbetween different sectors
Another key message was the need to embed the conceptof responsible research and innovation at the politicallevel Much can be done at this level to enhance theresponsibility aspect in the way we approach and builda framework around research and innovation Possibleways of doing so could be to consult stakeholders via
public consultation when we identify research areas ofstrategic importance to make public access to researchresults a precondition for EU funding or to invite actorsfrom different sectors of society to participate in advisorygroups when governance structures of research fundingprogrammes are being developed
On 31 May 2012 the Danish Presidency obtaineda general agreement in the European Council on thestructure and main line of activities in the next Europeanfunding programme for research and innovation ndashHorizon 2020 The agreement defines the relationshipbetween science and society and the promotion of
Responsible Research and Innovation as one of thecross-cutting issues in the programme In the comingyear the particularities of Horizon 2020 will be fleshedout This is a great opportunity to anchor the concept ofsciencersquos social responsibility in a concrete frameworkI strongly believe that the idea of science and societybeing connected by a mutual responsibility is somethingthat should not be limited to certain scientific disciplinesRather it should be a foundation that permeates allactivities in research and innovation As such I wouldencourage a final lay-out of Horizon 2020 that promotesthis line of thinking across the whole framework pro-
gramme
While much can be done at organisational and structurallevels to foster responsible research and innovationI would like to stress that the mindset of responsibilitystarts with the individual researcher or innovator Wehave come a long way in past years but there is still roomfor improvement The quality and relevance of researchin areas such as new medicine or sustainable energywill be heightened if research is carried out in dialoguewith the end users of new technologies with authoritiesand with stakeholders Informal platforms such asscience shops consultation or public meetings between
researchers private companies and the wider societycould be developed to this end
I encourage researchers to engage in society to beopen to dialogue and to have an eye for public concernsand ambitions ndash all with the ambition of building betterscience for the world
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARDDanish Minister for ScienceInnovation and Higher Education
PREFACE
PAGE 3
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 442
Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES
The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at EuroscienceOpen Forum 2014 in Copenhagen
From 21-26 June 2014 international researchers policymakers studentsentrepreneurs and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take partin ESOF 2014 Europersquos largest general science conference
The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model ofResponsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactionsto the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally
For futher information visit wwwesof2014org
The conference ldquoScience in Dialogue ndash Towards aEuropean Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vationrdquo took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as partof the Danish EU Presidency
The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Higher Education with assistancefrom the think tank DEA It was hosted by the Universityof Southern Denmark in Odense
A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participatedin the conference and more than 35 highly qualifiedspeakers had been invited to speak or debate at the
conference The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples fromvarious sectors such as government universitiesindustry NGOs and science communication
Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of theconference and the conference format itself supportedthis During all plenary sessions iPads were distributedto the conference participants This allowed them to
easily take part in the panel debates by typing commentsand questions that everybody in the auditorium could seeand respond to which ensured a high level of interactionbetween the conference participants and panellists orspeakers
iPads were also used as a working tool during theworkshops that took place on the second conference dayThis made it possible for the workshop participants tosplit up into small working groups while still exchangingknowledge and ideas within the large workshop group
No conference conclusions or recommendations had
been drafted before the conference and the workshopswere designed to let the conference participants developideas and suggestions for action within specific topicssuch as ethics and emerging technologies or engagingstakeholders in research agendas
The suggestions produced by the conference participantshave also been included in the conference report
About the conference
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 4
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 542
About the conference participants
Rest of the World
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
2
26
6
53
13
ere o you ve
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Private sector
Public research institution
Media
Government
7
4
11
48
3
26
n w c sector are you emp oye
When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants
ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can
ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society
ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research
ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country
ndash Beyond words
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 5
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 342
The Best Science for the World
Research and innovation activities do not exist in avacuum Rather they are part of society and have ahuge influence on the way we act think and organiseour communities at both local and global levels ndash as wellas an enormous impact on our ability to create prosperityand progress This means that there is a need to discussthe role we would like science to play in society ndash andthe role we would like society to play in science Weneed to shift the focus from aspiring to creating the bestscience in the world to aspiring to creating the bestscience for the world
The presidency conference ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo marked
a welcome and needed shift in this direction Under thesubheading ldquoTowards a European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovationrdquo the conference did exactlythat ndash discuss how the relationship between science andsociety can be strengthened and become more productiveto the benefit of both science and society
While dialogue and cooperation are in themselves greatand can help improve our understanding of complexissues or our grasp of ethical dilemmas the ideaof responsible research and innovation is also aboutincreasing the quality of our investments in science
The probability of scientific results being relevant robustand having a positive impact on society will increaseif a sense of scientific social responsibility and respons-iveness to societyrsquos concerns and wishes can be fosteredndash and increased dialogue is one way of achieving this
The same is true when we talk about the large amount ofresearch and innovation that is carried out in the privatesector The likelihood of new products and technologiesbeing successful increases if they are developed onthe basis of a sound understanding of public needs andconcerns As such an open and inclusive approach basedon dialogue between different sectors will help Europe
heighten its innovative capacity
I was pleased to see that representatives of manydifferent sectors had found their way to Denmark forthe conference ndash industry universities science com-municators civil society organisations authoritiesand political bodies An important message fromthe conference was the need to promote cooperationbetween different sectors
Another key message was the need to embed the conceptof responsible research and innovation at the politicallevel Much can be done at this level to enhance theresponsibility aspect in the way we approach and builda framework around research and innovation Possibleways of doing so could be to consult stakeholders via
public consultation when we identify research areas ofstrategic importance to make public access to researchresults a precondition for EU funding or to invite actorsfrom different sectors of society to participate in advisorygroups when governance structures of research fundingprogrammes are being developed
On 31 May 2012 the Danish Presidency obtaineda general agreement in the European Council on thestructure and main line of activities in the next Europeanfunding programme for research and innovation ndashHorizon 2020 The agreement defines the relationshipbetween science and society and the promotion of
Responsible Research and Innovation as one of thecross-cutting issues in the programme In the comingyear the particularities of Horizon 2020 will be fleshedout This is a great opportunity to anchor the concept ofsciencersquos social responsibility in a concrete frameworkI strongly believe that the idea of science and societybeing connected by a mutual responsibility is somethingthat should not be limited to certain scientific disciplinesRather it should be a foundation that permeates allactivities in research and innovation As such I wouldencourage a final lay-out of Horizon 2020 that promotesthis line of thinking across the whole framework pro-
gramme
While much can be done at organisational and structurallevels to foster responsible research and innovationI would like to stress that the mindset of responsibilitystarts with the individual researcher or innovator Wehave come a long way in past years but there is still roomfor improvement The quality and relevance of researchin areas such as new medicine or sustainable energywill be heightened if research is carried out in dialoguewith the end users of new technologies with authoritiesand with stakeholders Informal platforms such asscience shops consultation or public meetings between
researchers private companies and the wider societycould be developed to this end
I encourage researchers to engage in society to beopen to dialogue and to have an eye for public concernsand ambitions ndash all with the ambition of building betterscience for the world
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARDDanish Minister for ScienceInnovation and Higher Education
PREFACE
PAGE 3
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 442
Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES
The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at EuroscienceOpen Forum 2014 in Copenhagen
From 21-26 June 2014 international researchers policymakers studentsentrepreneurs and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take partin ESOF 2014 Europersquos largest general science conference
The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model ofResponsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactionsto the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally
For futher information visit wwwesof2014org
The conference ldquoScience in Dialogue ndash Towards aEuropean Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vationrdquo took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as partof the Danish EU Presidency
The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Higher Education with assistancefrom the think tank DEA It was hosted by the Universityof Southern Denmark in Odense
A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participatedin the conference and more than 35 highly qualifiedspeakers had been invited to speak or debate at the
conference The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples fromvarious sectors such as government universitiesindustry NGOs and science communication
Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of theconference and the conference format itself supportedthis During all plenary sessions iPads were distributedto the conference participants This allowed them to
easily take part in the panel debates by typing commentsand questions that everybody in the auditorium could seeand respond to which ensured a high level of interactionbetween the conference participants and panellists orspeakers
iPads were also used as a working tool during theworkshops that took place on the second conference dayThis made it possible for the workshop participants tosplit up into small working groups while still exchangingknowledge and ideas within the large workshop group
No conference conclusions or recommendations had
been drafted before the conference and the workshopswere designed to let the conference participants developideas and suggestions for action within specific topicssuch as ethics and emerging technologies or engagingstakeholders in research agendas
The suggestions produced by the conference participantshave also been included in the conference report
About the conference
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 4
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 542
About the conference participants
Rest of the World
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
2
26
6
53
13
ere o you ve
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Private sector
Public research institution
Media
Government
7
4
11
48
3
26
n w c sector are you emp oye
When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants
ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can
ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society
ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research
ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country
ndash Beyond words
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 5
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 442
Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES
The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at EuroscienceOpen Forum 2014 in Copenhagen
From 21-26 June 2014 international researchers policymakers studentsentrepreneurs and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take partin ESOF 2014 Europersquos largest general science conference
The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model ofResponsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactionsto the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally
For futher information visit wwwesof2014org
The conference ldquoScience in Dialogue ndash Towards aEuropean Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vationrdquo took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as partof the Danish EU Presidency
The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Higher Education with assistancefrom the think tank DEA It was hosted by the Universityof Southern Denmark in Odense
A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participatedin the conference and more than 35 highly qualifiedspeakers had been invited to speak or debate at the
conference The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples fromvarious sectors such as government universitiesindustry NGOs and science communication
Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of theconference and the conference format itself supportedthis During all plenary sessions iPads were distributedto the conference participants This allowed them to
easily take part in the panel debates by typing commentsand questions that everybody in the auditorium could seeand respond to which ensured a high level of interactionbetween the conference participants and panellists orspeakers
iPads were also used as a working tool during theworkshops that took place on the second conference dayThis made it possible for the workshop participants tosplit up into small working groups while still exchangingknowledge and ideas within the large workshop group
No conference conclusions or recommendations had
been drafted before the conference and the workshopswere designed to let the conference participants developideas and suggestions for action within specific topicssuch as ethics and emerging technologies or engagingstakeholders in research agendas
The suggestions produced by the conference participantshave also been included in the conference report
About the conference
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 4
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 542
About the conference participants
Rest of the World
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
2
26
6
53
13
ere o you ve
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Private sector
Public research institution
Media
Government
7
4
11
48
3
26
n w c sector are you emp oye
When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants
ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can
ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society
ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research
ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country
ndash Beyond words
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 5
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 542
About the conference participants
Rest of the World
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
2
26
6
53
13
ere o you ve
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Private sector
Public research institution
Media
Government
7
4
11
48
3
26
n w c sector are you emp oye
When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants
ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can
ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society
ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research
ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country
ndash Beyond words
GENERAL INFORMATION
PAGE 5
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 642
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 6PAGE 6
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper
WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION
JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark
MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN 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 AccountabilitySustainability and Society
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter
RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission
PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA
PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits
and Main Challenges
PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp 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 PhD and Director of Mind amp 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 PolicyAarhus University
Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions
By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 742
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 7PAGE 7
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
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 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen
Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society
SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities
ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 842
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
PAGE 8PAGE 8
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics
Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-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 projectsinitiatives and best practice
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 942
CONFERENCE DAY 325 April 2012
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings
ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean 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 Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective
TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament
PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12
HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen
PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014
PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government
KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation
CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE
Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School
OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation
PAGE 9
THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1042
Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science
The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy
In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow
Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few
After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this
The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions
All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of
the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services
Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society
A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 10
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1142
testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020
The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play
The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape
a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research
We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event
We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals
Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together
In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed
None of those initiatives would be possible without
the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years
I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe
Thank you
MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 11
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1242
Conference Summary
by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE
Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter
Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science
As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year
framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message
It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo
Responsible Research and Innovation
The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter
A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat 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 researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years
Comment made via iPad during the conference
NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology
How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 12
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1342
There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate
We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue
can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident
industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country
Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from
the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up
The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest
People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda
The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers
Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation
Question made via iPad during the conference
Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads
Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 13
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1442
Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue
is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like
The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to
questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were
ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020
ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation
ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society
ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge
ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs
ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context
Should Responsible
Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes
Question made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 14
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1542
Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion
within a university than at a company
As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words
The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like
The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and
governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be
One obvious conclusion from
this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020
Comment made via iPad during the conference
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 15
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1642
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PAGE 16
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1742
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1842
WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Workshop chair
JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School
Workshop speakers
ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia
CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF
Workshop report by Head of Section
Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science
Technology and Innovation
This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible
innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting
sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue
Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage
of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-
holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions
Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number
of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians
The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed
The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general
support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 28-30
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 18
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 1942
WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation
Workshop chair
ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente
Workshop speakers
LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology
INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister
PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre
Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser
Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research
The workshop explored the potential for opening up
innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework
As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact
that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly
able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments
Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders
and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation
The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and
participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities
Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate
about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes
After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European
programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow
See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 19
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2042
WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating
Visions for European Futures
Workshop chair
ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability
Workshop speakers
KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark
HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch 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 AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and
interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity
Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-
report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point
that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest
Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and
ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios
Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between
private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs
There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when
using participation methods
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 34-37
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 20
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2142
WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics
Workshop chair
STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA
Workshop speakers
MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant
PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France
Workshop report by Senior Consultant
Line Gry Knudsen DEA
The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find
knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills
Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find
ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration
Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what
counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes
See the suggestions produced by the participants
in this workshop on pages 38-40
SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
PAGE 21
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2342
Introduction tothe workshop suggestions
During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge
The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus 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 importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways
Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way
The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more
general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research
On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 23
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2442
At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed
What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod
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 togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 24
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2542
The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional 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 scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa 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 integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved
What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas 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 togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 25
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2642
The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time
What are the cost implicationsHorizon 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 togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public
Comment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 26
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2742
How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared
to other institutions
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein 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
WORKSHOP 1
Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 27
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2842
How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased 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 suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems
What are the cost implicationsIt 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 togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 28
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2942
How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding 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 suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 29
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3042
How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more
systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising
Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies
There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications 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 strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries
At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later
What are the cost implicationsShould 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 togetherA global initiative could be an idea
WORKSHOP 2
Ethics and Emerging Technologies
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 30
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3142
How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat 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 howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe 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 alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs
What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 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 togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 31
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3242
Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness
in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation
What are the cost implicationsCosts 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 togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society
Question made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 32
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3342
How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform
ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established
ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash 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 boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors
together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including
philanthropists)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream
What are the cost implicationsPotentially 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 togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States
WORKSHOP 3
Inclusive and Open Innovation
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 33
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3442
How can vested interests be overcome
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also
for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific 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 existingoptions
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
WS4
Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address
the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 34
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3542
How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities
What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash 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 togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-
cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 35
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3642
ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified
ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society
What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides 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 togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 36
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3742
How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt 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 togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this
WORKSHOP 4
Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 37
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3842
Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding
Comment made via iPad during the conference
How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)
ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process
What are the cost implicationsTime 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 togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 38
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 3942
The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating 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 differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now
What are the cost implicationsExpenses 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 togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 39
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4042
The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions
Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness
system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic
as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive
management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs
between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training
What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash 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 opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved
ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities
Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system
Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked
What are the cost implicationsNo 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 togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context
WORKSHOP 5
A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics
SUGGESTIONS
PAGE 40
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4142PAGE 41
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by
8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 4242
Supported by