We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens' meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming Horizon Europe framework programme seems counter-productive and poorly timed

Bloch, C

Bührer, S

Griessler, E

Jäger, A

Lindner, R

Madsen, EB

Maier, F

Meijer, I

Mejlgaard, N

Peter, V

Stilgoe, J

Woolley, R

Wuketich, M

UCL Discovery

SCIENCE, SOCIETY AND CITIZENS: SUGGESTIONS (AND HOPES) ON HOW TOFOSTER RRI IN HORIZON EUROPEA key moment for European science policyNiels Mejlgaard, Richard Woolley, Carter Bloch, Susanne Bührer,Erich Griessler, Angela Jäger, Ralf Lindner, Emil Bargmann Madsen,Frédéric Maier, Ingeborg Meijer, Viola Peter, Jack Stilgoeand Milena WuketichWe argue that the commitment to science-society integration andResponsible Research and Innovation in past European frameworkprogrammes has already made considerable progress in better aligningresearch and innovation with European societies. The frameworkprogrammes have important socialisation effects and recent research pointto positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research andInnovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step awayfrom the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens’ meaningfulcontribution to research and innovation in the upcoming Horizon Europeframework programme seems counter-productive and poorly timed.AbstractParticipation and science governanceKeywordshttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305DOIA common thread that has run through two decades of European frameworkprogrammes (FPs) for research and innovation (R&I) funding, up to and includingthe current Horizon 2020, has been a dedicated line of support for connectingscience to the values and interests of European citizens. Most recently under thework program Science with and for Society (SwafS), considerable investments havebeen made in projects designed to link R&I to the constellations of societalstakeholders who rely on and benefit from excellence in science and technology.These projects have sought to integrate diverse sets of actors to co-create andimplement common R&I agendas through an array of different methods and basedon a commitment to cultivate responsibility in the context of research andinnovation. The portfolio of research projects and coordination activities has alsosucceeded in building an evidence base about the science-society relationship. At atime of increased concern about lack of trust in science and concerted efforts toundermine the status of expert knowledge, institutionalising mechanisms toThis commentary extends our argument published as a Letter-to-the-Editor of Science on August24, 2018 [Mejlgaard et al., 2018].Comment Journal of Science Communication 17(03)(2018)C05 1include citizens in the conduct and governance of science and innovation seemsmore vital than ever.The aim of SwafS has been both to progressively align R&I in Europe with citizens’expectations and to deepen the opportunities for scientific modes of citizenship inthe Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU). Investments in science,research and innovation drive socio-economic development and employment.Supporting informed and engaged citizenship is therefore essential both for theupstream shaping of what R&I delivers to society and to develop the capacities ofcitizens to fully participate in and maximise the benefits of R&I. Carlos Moedas, thecurrent Commissioner for R&I in Europe, has consistently voiced his support forcitizen science and a preference for an open model of science that bringsstakeholders more fully into the fold of R&I. The recent high level expert groupreport chaired by former Commissioner for Trade Pascal Lamy on the impact of EUresearch and innovation programmes emphasized the ongoing need for specificactions to mobilize and include citizens and to continue to build the knowledgebase on what works [European Commission, 2017]. And, as we describe below,there is mounting evidence that investments in aligning science with society arehaving beneficial effects.Yet the draft plans for the next multiannual FP, Horizon Europe, contain neither acontinuation of SwafS nor a new dedicated work program with similar objectives.Rather, support for citizen science, co-creation, gender equality and ethics, aresubsumed as ‘broad lines’ under R&I policy measures designed to help strengthenthe European Research Area [European Commission, 2018a]. Opportunities toestablish and enhance connections and cross-currents between science and societymay be foreseen as complementary aims within work programs with boldscientific, technological and challenge-oriented goals.This is a surprise, particularly when one considers how the context for HorizonEurope is described in the program proposal:. . . research and innovation are seen by some as distant and elitist without clearbenefits for citizens, instilling attitudes that hamper the creation and uptake ofinnovative solutions, and scepticism about evidence-based public policies.This requires both better linkages between scientists, citizens andpolicy-makers and more robust approaches to pooling scientific evidenceitself. . . where the outcomes of research and innovation are understood andtrusted by informed citizens and benefit society as a whole [EuropeanCommission, 2018a, p. 74–75].The scope and severity of the challenge to scientific legitimacy is acknowledged, asis the necessity for informed and involved citizens if the impacts of R&I are to bemaximised. Yet, as stakeholders in the science and society community have voicedin launching an effort to save SwafS, Horizon Europe appears to step away fromthe concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens’ meaningful contribution to R&Ithat were a feature of past FPs. This seems counter-productive and poorly timed.The proposed direct focus on societal challenges, scientific missions and citizens’needs demands a targeted approach designed to exploit the existing knowledgebase and relationships with civil society that have been so assiduously builthttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305 JCOM 17(03)(2018)C05 2through SwafS and its predecessors — primed by a renewed commitment to extendengagement with the broadest possible spectrum of social stakeholders.One area of particular concern in plans for Horizon Europe is the absence ofsupport for the continued institutionalisation of responsible research andinnovation (RRI), an area in which Europe has been taking global leadership. The2014 Rome Declaration on RRI in Europe described RRI as the process of aligningresearch and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society andadvocated integration into EU research and innovation policy.1 The Declarationboth demonstrated a maturing of the concept and foreshadowed a constructivefuture for RRI, building on the important work conducted through EU fundedprojects and the local, regional and national efforts to shape R&I for theimprovement of European societies [Owen, Macnaghten and Stilgoe, 2012].Our recent research focused on tracking the evolution and benefits of RRI producedconcrete evidence that the considerable effort made to cultivate RRI is havingimportant effects [Peter et al., 2018]. First, we can clearly observe that participatingin FP research projects promotes a greater familiarity with RRI principles withinthe European research community. Researchers who have participated in FPresearch projects are more likely to employ responsible practices in their own work,and they are more likely to identify democratic, social, or economic benefits forstakeholders beyond the R&I system. Importantly, compared to a control group ofnon-EU funded researchers, they are also more likely to observe that their scienceimproves by being responsible, or to have strong expectations that such benefitswill emerge in the future. Perceptions of scientific benefits catalysed by RRI aresummarised in Figure 1.Figure 1. European researchers’ perception of scientific benefits of RRI. Findings based onsurvey-responses from 3117 EU-funded researchers and 1264 responses from a control groupof non-EU funded researchers. For details on sampling, response rates and questionnairedesign, see here [i.e. Bührer et al., 2017].1The Rome Declaration states that “[T]he benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation gobeyond alignment with society: it ensures that research and innovation deliver on the promise ofsmart, inclusive and sustainable solutions to our societal challenges; it engages new perspectives,new innovators and new talent from across our diverse European society, allowing to identifysolutions which would otherwise go unnoticed; it builds trust between citizens, and public andprivate institutions in supporting research and innovation; and it reassures society about embracinginnovative products and services; it assesses the risks and the way these risks should be managed”.https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305 JCOM 17(03)(2018)C05 3Second, in addition to these observations concerning the socialising effects of theFPs on individual researchers, the available evidence on the process of RRImainstreaming in academic organisations suggests that there is a positive trend ofgrowth and development in all RRI key areas: gender equality, open access, scienceliteracy and education, public engagement and ethics. The transformative potentialof RRI is starting to materialise in the shape of new governance arrangements inacademic organisations. From 2014 to 2016 a growing share of Europeanuniversities and research organisations promoted open data sharing, expandedtheir outreach and engagement activities, developed gender equality plans andestablished research ethics committees and research integrity offices. Overall, theinstitutional commitment to cultivating responsible practices showed a positivetrend, which is captured in Figure 2.Figure 2. Trends in selected indicators of RRI across European universities and researchorganisations. Findings based on survey-responses from 259 universities and 208 public re-search organisations. To see the full range of RRI indicators, click here [i.e. European Com-mission, 2018b] and details on sampling of institutions, response rates and questionnairedesign can be retrieved here [i.e. European Commission, 2018c].Third, it is evident that different European countries are experimenting with RRIand developing it in ways that suit them best, whilst maintaining a strong sharedcommitment. Our monitoring data reveals traits that are distinctive for individualcountries, but also clusters of countries with shared priorities and practices in thedevelopment of RRI [Mejlgaard, Bloch and Bargmann Madsen, 2018]. Knowledgeabout patterns of similarities and differences opens up avenues for learningbetween countries. The development and sharing of knowledge about newpractices, procedures and ways of thinking about responsibility — not leastthrough FP projects — has built new professional communities around RRI. Thesecommunities of researchers, administrators, policymakers and publics, share coreunderstandings and principles regarding responsibility whilst retaining sufficientlatitude for Member States to order their own priorities on this common pathway.We would argue that the accumulated evidence demonstrates that RRI has alreadymade considerable progress in better aligning R&I with European societies. Ashared knowledge base has been built. Active communities of diverse stakeholdersare in place and working to advance RRI in the interests of broad mutual benefits.It is somewhat dismaying, then, to find that plans for Horizon Europe do nothttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305 JCOM 17(03)(2018)C05 4include specific provisions and mechanisms to continue the integration of science,stakeholder communities and citizens’ initiatives. In the context of turbulent times,where vital shared values are again under challenge to prove their worth, citizens’involvement and stakeholder inclusion across the full research cycle[Olmos-Peñuela, Benneworth and Castro-Martínez, 2015] seems crucial for conjointdemocratic, societal and scientific progress. Conversely, again allowing R&I to driftaway from the hands, minds and lives of European citizens is a dangerous gamble.To put this risk into budgetary perspective, the most recent SwafS program costs462 million euros, which amounted to just 0.6% of the total budget for Horizon2020 [European Commission, 2013].It is always tempting to bet everything on science and innovation’s undoubtedcapacities to produce new knowledge and technologies to solve societal challenges,create better jobs and boost health, sustainability and welfare. But the governanceof science and technology is never simply a technical issue. If we do not giveEuropean citizens a stake in a future for which science and innovation will beincreasingly important, science and innovation will be misaligned with what thecontinent and the world needs. This is why plans for Horizon Europe must bere-thought — this is no time for science to turn its back on society.CompetinginterestsThe authors wish to declare that they have in the past been or are currentlybeneficiaries of the European FPs for science-society integration.References Bührer, S., Lindner, R., Berghäuser, H., Woolley, R., Mejlgaard, N., Wroblewski, A.and Meijer, I. (2017). Monitoring the evolution and benefits of RRI: Report on theresearchers’ survey. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.URL: http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/D9_1-Report-on-Benefits_Final.pdf.European Commission (2013). Factsheet: Horizon 2020 budget.URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/fact_sheet_on_horizon2020_budget.pdf.— (2017). LAB — FAB — APP — Investing in the European future we want. Report ofthe independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research &Innovation Programmes. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Researchand Innovation. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_2017_report.pdf.— (2018a). Annexes — proposal for the specific programme implementing HorizonEurope. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.— (2018b). The evolution of responsible research and innovation in Europe: The MoRRIindicators report — Monitoring Report. Pre-publication version. Brussels, Belgium:European Commission. URL: http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/D4.3_Revised_20022018_clean.pdf.— (2018c). The evolution of responsible research and innovation in Europe: The MoRRIindicators report — Monitoring Report Annex. Pre-publication version. Brussels,Belgium: European Commission. URL: http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Appendix_D4.3_20022018_clean.pdf.https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305 JCOM 17(03)(2018)C05 5Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2014). Rome Declaration onResponsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: EuropeanCommission. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf.Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C. and Bargmann Madsen, E. (2018). ‘Responsible researchand innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis’. Science andPublic Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy048.Mejlgaard, N., Woolley, R., Bloch, C., Bührer, S., Griessler, E., Jäger, A., Lindner, R.,Bargmann Madsen, E., Maier, F., Meijer, I., Peter, V., Stilgoe, J. and Wuketich, M.(2018). ‘Europe’s plans for responsible science’. Science 361 (6404), pp. 761–762.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0400.Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P. and Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). ‘What StimulatesResearchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an ‘Openness’ Approach’.Minerva 53 (4), pp. 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4.Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012). ‘Responsible research andinnovation: From science in society to science for society, with society’. Scienceand Public Policy 39 (6), pp. 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.Peter, V., Maier, F., Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Madsen, E., Griessler, E., Wuketich, M.,Meijer, I., Woolley, R., Lindner, R., Bührer, S., Jäger, A., Tsipouri, L. andStilgoe, J. (2018). Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research andinnovation in Europe. Summarising insights from the MoRRI project. Brussels,Belgium: European Commission. URL: http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Final_report_MoRRI.pdf.Mejlgaard, N., Woolley, R., Bloch, C., Bührer, S., Griessler, E., Jäger, A., Lindner, R.,How to citeBargmann Madsen, E., Maier, F., Meijer, I., Peter, V., Stilgoe, J. and Wuketich, M.(2018). ‘A key moment for European science policy’. JCOM 17 (03), C05.https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305.c© The Author(s). This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution — NonCommercial — NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.ISSN 1824-2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. jcom.sissa.ithttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030305 JCOM 17(03)(2018)C05 6

A Key Moment for European Science Policy

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10058733/1/JCOM_1703_2018_C05.pdf

A Key Moment for European Science Policy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery