RRI as a governance paradigm: What is new?

This chapter frames RRI as an emerging governance approach in the EU regulatory context. We argue that reference to fundamental rights makes RRI a distinctive approach to responsibility compared to other existing paradigms and that human rights, in particular those laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are not necessarily a constraint but can instead be a catalyst of innovation. Eventually we maintain that a governance framework based on the complementarity between legal norms and voluntary commitments might successfully combine the respect of fundamental rights with the openness and flexibility of the innovation process

The Fukushima accident and public perceptions about nuclear power around the globe – a challenge & response model

We examine the impact of the Fukushima accident (March 2011) on global public perceptions of nuclear power. We contrast conceptually and empirically two models, an event & effect (EE) model [Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61, 822–828] and our own challenge & response (CR) model. We replicate Kim et al. (2013), who modelled retrospective opinion changes on a set of “objective” predictors, using historical opinion data 1996–2016 for 23+ countries. The EE model shows little explanatory power for opinion shifts beyond nuclear dependency in the energy mix. We argue that individual and societal responses to nuclear accidents are constrained by cultural memories, and introduce the alternative CR model. Memory, both individual and collective, is primarily adaptive and makes available schematic information to deal with uncertain and novel situations. The CR model explains better the responses to Fukushima with memory factors of “Past Responses to Nuclear Incidents”, of “Nuclear Renaissance” and “Long-term levels of Acceptance”. We are able to typify 23 countries according to their characteristic pattern of cultural memory and their Fukushima responses

Europe's plans for responsible science

In the past, European framework programs for research and innovation have included funding for the integration of science and society (1). Collaborative projects have brought together diverse sets of actors to co-create and implement common agendas through citizen science, science communication, public engagement, and responsible research and innovation (RRI) and have built an evidence base about science-society interaction (2, 3). In the proposal for the upcoming Horizon Europe program, however, there is no sustained support for RRI, nor is there a program line dedicated to co-creating knowledge and agendas with civil society (4). These serious oversights must be corrected before the Horizon Europe program is adopted by the Council and the European Parliament

Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: recommendations for research funders

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk

Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science