Open public online consultation on the Science with and for Society Work Programme

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH & INNOVATION Directorate B Innovation Union and European Research Area B.7 Science with and for society Linden Farrer Brussels, September 2016 Open public online consultation on the Science with and for Society Work Programme Description and analysis of results 1

2 Contents Executive summary Introduction Horizon Science with and for Society The 3Os strategy and growing recognition of the importance of RRI The SwafS open public online consultation Purpose, questions and targeting Respondent information Methodology Strengths and limitations Analysis by question Question 1 What aspects of Science with and for Society, relating for instance to public engagement, science education, gender, ethics, open access and governance, require action under the Work Programme ? Do you think they should be integrated across Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies? Question 2 What activities, types of publications and events, and impacts could be foreseen from the Work Programme ? Which innovations (understood in their broadest sense including social innovations) relating to aspects of Science with and for Society could reach market or societal deployment within 5-7 years? Question 3 Which existing and emerging challenges (relating for instance to science and technology, innovation, markets and policies) and potential game changers (such as the role of the public sector in accelerating changes) should be taken into account? Question 4 Which areas would benefit most from the integration of horizontal aspects such as the social sciences and humanities, responsible research and innovation, gender aspects, and climate and sustainable development? Question 5 Which policies or initiatives should be supported by a) Science with and for Society and b) other parts of Horizon 2020, in order to mainstream Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within and outside the European Union? Analysis by SwafS' eight areas of activity Concluding remarks

3 Executive summary The objective of Science with and for Society (SwafS) is "to build effective cooperation between science and society, to recruit new talent for science, and to pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility". It focuses on eight areas: scientific careers, gender, the integration of society in science and innovation, formal and informal science education, the accessibility and use of research results, governance for the advancement of RRI (including ethics), due and proportional precaution, and improvement of knowledge on science communication. An open public online consultation was launched in April 2016 for 12 weeks to collect opinions on the strategy, scope, objectives and expected impacts of the SwafS Work Programme A total of 104 contributions were received; 90 contributions were analysed after removing duplicates and those that were received in confidence. Views representing more than 6500 organisations from a wide range of stakeholder groups (e.g. industry, academia, civil society) were thereby taken into account. The exercise yielded a rich body of rich qualitative data, which were analysed according to the five open questions, with the following main findings: 1. All eight SwafS areas require attention, though science education (STEM and STEAM), public engagement, gender, ethics, open access, governance, scientific careers and science communication were most frequently mentioned. These should be integrated across Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT). Contributors also supported the continuation of SwafS a separate line in Horizon 2020 and beyond. 2. Many different activities and impacts should be foreseen. These include bringing scientists and teachers together in classrooms, developing innovative teaching methodologies, citizen science and agenda-setting exercises. Science centres and museums were frequently mentioned as venues for activities. Among others, these activities would contribute towards the goal of open science and an improved understanding of science. 3. Existing and emerging challenges include gender equality, developing new notions of and means of measuring scientific excellence, the implications of open science on the practice of science, and a perceived increase in anti-intellectual sentiment. Other challenges include the sustainability of healthcare systems and costs of pharmaceutical development, migration, persistent and widening inequalities, and issues related to sustainability (e.g. renewable energy, climate change, natural resources and biodiversity). Game changers include the public sector as a driver for innovation, citizen science, genomics, robotics and text and data mining. 4. The social sciences and humanities (SSH), responsible research and innovation (RRI), gender and climate change should all be integrated across Horizon 2020 in Societal Challenges and LEIT. Contributions stressed the importance of inter/transdisciplinarity research, and the need to focus on all social groups. 5. Policies and initiatives should be implemented in SwafS and in Horizon 2020 to further mainstream RRI. In SwafS this could include an ERA-Net on RRI/open science, funding for structural changes directed at 'early-stage' institutions, and training on RRI. In Horizon 2020 efforts could be made to open up to more civil society organisations (CSOs), incorporate RRI in evaluation criteria, and improve the career prospects/working conditions of young scientists. 3

4 1. Introduction 1.1 Horizon 2020 Research and innovation is required to deliver on the Commission's priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Horizon 2020 is the biggest ever EU research and innovation programme, with nearly 80 billion of funding being made available over 7 years (2014 to 2020), in addition to the private investment that this will attract. It promises more breakthroughs, discoveries and world firsts by taking great ideas from the laboratory and to the market. Considered a means to drive economic growth and create jobs, Horizon 2020 is an investment in the future and pursued through three priorities (Excellent Science, Industrial Leadership, and Societal Challenges) and two specific objectives (Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation, and Science with and for Society) 1. The Horizon 2020 Specific Programme sets the scope and content for the implementation of the Framework Programme for research and innovation ( ) 2. It provides the legal base as agreed politically with Member States and the European Parliament, and determines the specific objectives for EU support to the research and innovation activities for each Horizon 2020 challenge/part. Importantly, the sequence of the actions and their framing are not defined in the Specific Programme. Instead, Commission services prepare multi-annual work programmes, which cover and , and which will soon become operational for the last years of Horizon The Specific Programme also specifies Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be taken into account in evaluation and monitoring, complemented by 14 issues that cut across Horizon ("cross-cutting issues"), thereby helping shape and drive each of the individual parts and the Framework Programme as a whole. 1.2 Science with and for Society The objective of the Part V of Horizon 2020, Science with and for Society (SwafS), is "to build effective cooperation between science and society, to recruit new talent for science, and to pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility". It helps address the Societal Challenges tackled by Horizon 2020 and builds capacity to connect science with society in innovative ways. It aims to make science more attractive (notably to young people), increase societal appetite for innovation, open up further research and innovation activities, and allow all societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, businesses, and third sector organisations, etc.) to work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align the process of research and innovation and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society. This approach to research and innovation is termed Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). To this end, SwafS focuses on eight areas of activity: a. Scientific careers: Make scientific and technological careers attractive to young students, and foster sustainable interaction between schools, research institutions, industry and civil society organisations;

5 b. Gender equality: Promote gender equality, in particular by supporting structural changes in research institutions and in the content and design of research activities; c. Public engagement: Integrate society in science and innovation issues, policies and activities by incorporating the needs and values of citizens, thereby increasing the quality, relevance, social acceptability and sustainability of research and innovation outcomes in various fields of activity, from social innovation to areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology; d. Science education: Encourage citizens, including children and youth, to engage in science through formal and informal science education, and promote the diffusion of science-based activities, namely in science centres and through other appropriate channels; e. Open access and open data: Develop the accessibility and the (re-)use of the results of publicly funded research; f. Governance: Develop governance for the advancement of RRI by all stakeholders (researchers, public authorities, industry and civil society organisations) that is sensitive to the needs and demands of society, and promote an ethics framework for research and innovation; g. Precautionary principle: Take due and proportional precautions in research and innovation activities by anticipating and assessing potential environmental, health and safety impacts; h. Science communication: Improve knowledge on science communication in order to enhance the quality and effectiveness of interactions between scientists, the media and the public. The KPI for SwafS is the number of instances of sustainable institutional change implemented towards RRI 4. This attests to the importance of supporting sustainable institutional changes in Research & Innovation (R&I) organisations, ensuring that the outcomes of SwafS live on well beyond the lifetime of funding. That said, other activities such as identification and collection of good practices, training on RRI, and development of a solid knowledge base on RRI are also clearly important, both as supports for the implementation of institutional change and as standalone activities in their own right. The Cross-cutting Issues indicator for Responsible Research and Innovation is instances where citizens, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and other societal actors contribute to the co-creation of scientific agendas and scientific contents. Gender is covered by four separate cross-cutting issues indicators: 1) the percentage of women participants in Horizon 2020 projects, 2) the percentage of women project co-ordinators in Horizon 2020, 3) the percentage of women in EC advisory groups, expert groups, evaluation panels, individual experts, etc., and 4) the percentage of projects taking into account the gender dimension of research and innovation content The 3Os strategy and growing recognition of the importance of RRI In 2015 Commissioner Moedas identified three major challenges facing European research and innovation: 1) Research and innovation developed in Europe rarely reaches the market, 2) Science is changing and becoming more open, collaborative and participative, and thereby challenging existing ways of conducting science, and 3) Europe is punching below its weight in international science and 4 This indicator is not mentioned in Annex II of the Council Decision, but as SwafS was introduced as a specific objective of Horizon 2020 during negotiations the Commission was compelled to provide a performance indicator for this objective

6 science diplomacy 6. In consequence, he identified three strategic priorities, described in Open innovation, Open science, and Open to the world 7, and proposed that "[t]he research process of the future will be global, networked and open. Many more actors will take part in different ways and the traditional methods of organising and rewarding research will also see many changes" 8. One important dimension of open science is citizen science, which is envisioned as "linked with outreach activities, science education or various forms of public engagement with science as a way to promote Responsible Research and Innovation". Giving impetus to this line of activity, citizen science was recently recognised as an open science priority by the Council 9. The R&I Commissioners meeting on 25 May 2016 highlighted the need to promote RRI throughout the Work Programme, including consideration of the gender dimension, as well as co-design with stakeholders and end-users. Other areas mentioned by Commissioners on 25 May 2016 included migration, sustainability and climate change. The increased attention to SwafS-related issues are a result of growing recognition that the benefits of RRI go beyond the fulfilment of societal needs by science and innovation: they ensure that research and innovation (R&I) deliver smart, inclusive and sustainable solutions to societal challenges by engaging new perspectives, new innovators and new talent. The Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe recognised this explicitly in 2014, encouraging close co-operation among all stakeholders in areas such as science education, the definition of research agendas, access to research results and the application of new knowledge, in full compliance with gender equality and ethical considerations 10. As such, RRI helps contribute towards several Commission priorities, including boosting jobs, growth and investment, taking action to tackle climate change, and supporting the transition to a reliable and sustainable energy system 11. SwafS also contributes to key policy priorities in the European Research Area, as recalled by the Council in December Prepared under the auspices of the 2014 Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. See

7 2. The SwafS open public online consultation 2.1 Purpose, questions and targeting The purpose of the open public online consultation was to collect views and opinions on the strategy, scope, objectives, and expected impacts of the Horizon 2020 Science with and for Society Work Programme The consultation was launched on 11 April 2016 and ran for 12 weeks until 4 July It consisted of two sections: the first recorded respondent information (e.g. organisation type, nationality) and the second section consisted of five open questions. These five questions were as follows: 1) What aspects of Science with and for Society, relating for instance to public engagement, science education, gender, ethics, open access and governance, require action under the Work Programme ? Do you think they should be integrated across societal challenges and leadership in enabling and industrial technologies? 2) What activities, types of publications and events, and impacts could be foreseen from the Work Programme ? Which innovations (understood in their broadest sense including social innovations) relating to aspects of Science with and for Society could reach market or societal deployment within 5-7 years? 3) Which existing and emerging challenges (relating for instance to science and technology, innovation, markets and policies) and potential game changers (such as the role of the public sector in accelerating changes) should be taken into account? 4) Which areas would benefit most from the integration of horizontal aspects such as the social sciences and humanities, responsible research and innovation, gender aspects, and climate and sustainable development? 5) Which policies or initiatives should be supported by a) Science with and for Society and b) other parts of Horizon 2020, in order to mainstream Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within and outside the European Union? Targeted (e.g. word of mouth, ) and non-targeted (e.g. website and social media) communication was used to encourage stakeholders to contribute. All citizens and organisations were welcome to contribute, in particular civil society organisations, businesses, research institutions, policy makers, higher education institutions, science museums, science shops, scientific centres of excellence, local public authorities, cities of scientific culture, and innovators and entrepreneurs. It was possible to contribute in any of the official languages of the EU. 2.2 Respondent information A total of 104 contributions were received, including two from outside the consultation website (by ). Ten contributors requested that their response not be published; in line with the Specific Privacy Statement 14 these are not analysed here. Most (69) of the 94 remaining responses agreed for their contribution to be published under their name or the name of their organisation, while 25 requested that their contribution be published anonymously; as per the Specific Privacy Statement, these responses have been anonymised and published electronically 15. In the course of analysis, it

8 was noted that 4 of the 94 contributions appeared to be duplicates (e.g. through submission error) and were therefore taken into account just once during analysis, leaving 90 contributions. Fig. 1 - Contributor responding as or behalf of An individual A single organisation A network of organisations The majority of contributions were submitted in an individual capacity. Single organisations constituted the second largest group, followed by networks of organisations. Network organisations appear to represent more than 6500 individual organisations; these include SMEs, corporations, NGOs, local and regional development agencies, libraries, foundations, cultural and artistic centres, women scientists, chemists, nursing associations, and learned societies. The female male ratio of respondents in the analysed sample is fairly equal (women 47, men 43). Overall (and including individual organisations), responses were received from individuals, a trade union, charities, national ministries, research advisory bodies at national and EU levels, higher education establishments, private non-profit research centres, science museums and science centres, consultancies, academies of science/technology, and a consortium conducting research. A broad body of stakeholders with an interest in SwafS issues therefore appears to have responded to the consultation (see Figure 2). Fig. 2 - Respondent organisation type Not applicable (if individual) Other Higher education establishment Private non-profit research centre Science museum or science centre Non-research private non-profit Consultancy Academy of science or technology International research centre CSO (Civil Society Organisation) Public research centre Non-research public sector Non-research international organisation Non-research commercial sector including SMEs Most of the contributions (80) come from an EU member state (including one listed as "European"), while 10 come from non-eu countries. The largest number of contributions was from the Netherlands (see Figure 3). The EU15 (countries that acceded to the EU before 2000) make up most of responses (74, 82%). Just 5 responses (approximately 6%) were received from EU13 countries (which acceded to the EU after 2000 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). This divergence between the EU13 and EU15 8

9 Netherlands Belgium Germany United Kingdom Spain France Italy Sweden Portugal Israel Poland Austria Croatia Czech Republic Finland Greece Ireland Malta "European" Iceland India Mexico Norway Serbia Switzerland Turkey Romania is mirrored in the difference in overall budget allocation of FP7 to these two sets of countries (4% to 85%) Fig. 3 - Country of resident/organisation The majority of contributions (54) were from individuals and organisations that had applied for funding under the current or previous EC Framework Programmes for research, while 34 had not; 1 contribution did not provide a response to this question. Of those that had applied for current or previous Framework Programmes for research, 1 applied for FP4, 3 for FP5, 10 for FP6, 38 for FP7 and 6 for Horizon Organisations could list more than one Framework Programme. The predecessors to Science with and for Society are Science and Society (FP6) and Science in Society (FP7); for more information see: 9

10 2.3 Methodology The consultation exercise yielded a large body of rich qualitative data. The most appropriate method for dealing with this was inductive qualitative analysis, with the aim of identifying patterns of responses from the overall body of data and building up corresponding categories. When appropriate, the categories developed were guided by SwafS' eight areas of activity (Section 1.2). Separate analyses were conducted for each question, and when appropriate for each sub-question. In some instances responses from a contributor to one question were counted and analysed as part of another question in order to reduce redundancy and aid analysis. Inductive categorisation allows the main categories of responses broadly, the trends and messages, to be listed, quantified and described. However, it also by necessity reduces detail. In order to bring granularity back into the analysis, particularly pertinent, representative and notable responses are highlighted after each of the five questions (Section ). Following this, analysis was conducted according to the eight SwafS lines of activity (Section 4). 2.4 Strengths and limitations The consultation took the form of an open online survey. It therefore allowed any stakeholder or individual to have their say and contribute to the SwafS Work Programme Contributions were received from a wide range of different kinds of organisations, indeed from all parts of the 'quadruple helix formations' 18 that SwafS tries to encourage and catalyse, representing thousands of different kinds of organisations (see Section 2.2). Similar to many other consultation exercises, however, this openness also means that respondents are self-selecting and that the contributions cannot be considered a representative sample of interested stakeholders. As indicated by the proportion of contributors who previously received or currently receive Framework Programme funding, the responses may to some extent replicate the views of the existing pool of funded SwafS stakeholders. In addition, the open format makes lobbying or campaigning-type actions possible, leading to potentially skewed results. The five open questions were designed to elicit a wide range of views and information, providing a rich source of inspiration to feed into the Work Programme. The questions succeeded in eliciting an extremely broad set of individual views, with questions answered from very different perspectives enriching and broadening the pool of ideas to draw upon. Nevertheless, these questions also gave great scope to interpretation, sometimes leading contributors to provide similar responses to several questions. The methodology employed appears suited to the type of data collected. Like most forms of analysis, inductive analysis can be biased by the knowledge and experience of those who conduct it. In this instance breaking the individual questions down into constituent parts helped provide a framework to reduce the scope for bias. Bias was also reduced by obtaining feedback on the raw data independently from Commission Services dealing with the eight main SwafS areas (see Section 1.2), and through feedback on draft versions from colleagues in Unit B7. 18 The quadruple helix model envisages services, products and solutions as being co-identified, co-developed and co-created through co-operation between industry, government, universities and society (e.g. citizens and Civil Society Organisations). 10

11 3. Analysis by question 3.1. Question 1 What aspects of Science with and for Society, relating for instance to public engagement, science education, gender, ethics, open access and governance, require action under the Work Programme ? Do you think they should be integrated across Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies? Overview Sixty of the 90 analysed responses suggested one or more aspects of SwafS that require action under the Work Programme : Science education 42 Public engagement 37 Gender 26 Open access 20 Ethics 19 Governance 15 Science careers 11 Science communication 6 Anticipatory/precautionary principle 3 Most (32) contributions stated that they should be integrated across Societal Challenges and/or Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT), 3 stated they should not; 55 did not respond to this part of the question. Of those that thought they should be integrated, 31 stated they should be integrated across Societal Challenges and 21 stated they should be integrated across LEIT. Diverse topics were suggested in response to this question. Topics related to SwafS include social attitudes to science (4), anti-intellectual views in society (2), societal acceptance of innovations (3), open science (3), the role of values in research (1), the value of marginalised and non-human knowledge (1), and research on Research Data Management (1) as part of preparations for open science. Topics related to science education (the most frequently noted aspect) included the importance of focusing on formal and informal education (7), science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (7), and science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) (3). A more general comment was the importance of focusing on children and young people (4). Contributors listed specific Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge and LEIT areas, which could be focused on specifically within SwafS or as particularly requiring integration. Foremost was the area of health (9), which included medicines, public health and demographic ageing. Sustainability-related topics and areas were put forward by 9 respondents. These included contributors who argued for a greater focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g. focusing or aligning research to help achieve these goals), and those mentioning food and agriculture (4). Areas of interest for LEIT included digital industries and genetics. Migration was cited by 3 as an area of interest. 11

12 Finally, respondents focused on the importance of citizens, civil society organisations (8) and SMEs (3) working towards Responsible Research and Innovation. Several contributors (12) took the opportunity to voice their support for SwafS as a separate line in H2020. Selection of contributions 19 - "We would like to insist on the necessity of taking a dual approach: on the one hand, SwafS and RRI principles should be incorporated in other programmes, in particular in Societal Challenge and Industrial Leadership pillars. This means that some of the calls should clearly take into account RRI pillars. On the other hand, it is necessary to keep a specific SwafS programme that can support projects not covered, or specifically focused on, by thematic areas of other pillars, but which can help to better analyse, develop and spread SWAFS and RRI principles (including best practices, research on RRI, etc.)", French National Advisory Group for SwafS co-ordinated by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research, France. - "All of these aspects are very important. However the Work Programme should focus in the first instance on the involvement of civil society in the search for solutions to societal challenges. To do this it is important to start from the role of schools in preparing children and students to be active citizens. The Work Programme should try to integrate these aspects across Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies", Anonymous. - "Integrate SwafS aspects, particularly gender and governance, across societal challenges and leadership", Catherine Lynch (Equality Expert), Ireland. - "As science progresses and integrates in societal interests, the EU needs co-ordinated frameworks to develop regulations and legislation that ensures scientific breakthroughs achieve real impact whilst informing and protecting citizens", EU-LIFE, Spain. - "We need a deeper understanding of how societal actors understand, interact with, react to, and sometimes reject scientific results, as well as the scientific knowledge production process. Science rejection is becoming increasingly important to investigate against the background of a dynamic media and communication landscape. In addition, the role of the media in conveying news about research and shaping public perceptions of science needs to be addressed", Vetenskap & Allmänhet, Sweden. - "[Public engagement] requires attention This means integrating various approaches such as science shops, citizen science, participatory action research, and so on. These can be broadly applied over all Grand Challenges and disciplines and create win-win situations for civil society and researchers", Science Shop at University of Groningen, the Netherlands. - "Diversity is essential to delivering excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. A diverse and inclusive scientific workforce draws on the widest range of backgrounds, perspectives and experiences, thereby maximising innovation and creativity in science for the benefit of humanity", Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, India. 19 Please note that contributions have been copy edited. 12

13 3.2. Question 2 What activities, types of publications and events, and impacts could be foreseen from the Work Programme ? Which innovations (understood in their broadest sense including social innovations) relating to aspects of Science with and for Society could reach market or societal deployment within 5-7 years? Overview Many different kinds of activities were suggested by contributors. The largest number was suggested for the area of science education (23). The suggestions included bringing scientists and school teachers together in the classroom (6), developing innovative teaching methodologies and syllabi (6), developing formal and informal educational activities (4), organising science shops (4), and opening up universities to local communities and stakeholders (3). The second largest number of activities was suggested for public engagement (20), with co-creation & agenda-setting activities mentioned in 7 contributions. Professional development and training for teachers, scientists and technicians as part of their science careers (7), dissemination and science communication (4) and governance (3) were mentioned less frequently. Citizen science was mentioned in 12 contributions, for instance in the form of hacklabs and pop-up science labs. Nine contributors suggested collaborative research as an activity, and 9 contributors also stated that there should be effort to reflect upon and evaluate progress and results arising from current and past SwafS projects to identify good and promising practices. Two contributors highlighted the need for research and science education to cover the issue of scientific uncertainty. Types of publications were mentioned by 24 contributors. Suggested formats included films and videos (4), open access research (3), social media platforms (3), non-english outputs (2), graphic novels (2), games (1) and books in general (1). Suggested audiences were the general public (7), teachers (2) and children (1). Events were suggested by 21 contributors. These included public debates (6), exhibitions (3), science festivals (3), conferences (3), multi-stakeholder workshops (2), hackathons (1), unconferences (1), science fairs (1) and training events (1). Science centres, museums, theatres and mobile laboratories were mentioned as potential venues to conduct these activities. Open science was the most frequently cited impact (30). Several other impacts related to science education and scientific careers were mentioned: better science education (15), broader understanding of science (15), and a better trained workforce (2). Science communication was mentioned in 6 responses; these included recognition of science communication as a "mature discipline", development of a quality recognition system for science communication, and new tools and formats for communication. Also mentioned were: greater gender balance in science (5), and improved health, well-being and quality of life (5). Several other impacts could not be categorised; these included bringing the arts and sciences closer together, bottom-up development of solutions to tackle societal challenges, broader discussions on sustainability, a more responsive science, and greater understanding of the factors that shape public opinion. The part of the question relating to innovations that could reach market deployment was understood in very broad terms. These included social and organisational innovations (7), with several cautioning 13

14 that social innovations should not be forgotten in favour of technological ones. Educational innovations (10) included curricula, syllabi, practices to increase physical movement in classrooms, new learning and teaching methods and the use of IT to foster new cultures of learning in schools. More sustainable products were mentioned 5 times, with one response focusing on the potential to find innovative solutions to water management, drought and desalination. Selection of contributions - "Concrete lessons and lesson activities should be designed in close collaboration between science museums, schools and science education institutes. Such activities would contribute to a common science agenda supported by government and sustained by schools, science museums and research institutes", individual response by Prof. dr. W.R. Wouter van Joolingen (Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education), the Netherlands. - "Some of the main outputs would be on a methodological level, with well-integrated, implemented and instituted approaches and co-creation along the lines of RRI throughout Horizon This would fulfil the long-term Europe 2020 strategy of a smarter, more sustainable and inclusive European economy and society The outcomes of future projects would therefore likely better match the societal expectations, values and needs of European citizens", Network of National Contact Points for Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020 (SIS.net2), Iceland. - It is important to promote and support the transformation of the results of research and innovation into new products, services and societal deployment. The results must be utilised and communicated in a more systematic way... Innovations are often interpreted in a narrow sense, which excludes many scientific areas and decreases the possibilities to solve great social challenges Moreover, it is also important that there is a balance between spending on fundamental research, applied research and more innovative activities", The Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations, Sweden. - "Project outputs should not only include research articles, but actively encourage engagement through formats that are more social and experience based, i.e. which involve interactions and common work among project partners in different nations, and which are also publicly visible and accessible, for example films, graphic novels, festivals and exhibitions", Sophia Efstathiou, Greece. - "The Helsinki Group on Gender in Research and Innovation stresses the various types of impact of integrating sex and gender analysis into research and innovation. These gendered innovations have the potential to build more robust, socially responsible and accountable research findings as well as solutions to grand challenges that answer the needs of the whole population", Helsinki Group on Gender in Research and Innovation. - "To promote access to knowledge for all, it seems important to focus on the training of researchers in oral and written communication for the general public. A number of actions in this area could be supported by the next SwafS programme, including media training and training researchers in public speaking. This type of action would consolidate the links between the different actors involved in research (researchers, mediators, decision makers) and associations of journalists", Anonymous [translated from French]. 14

15 3.3. Question 3 Which existing and emerging challenges (relating for instance to science and technology, innovation, markets and policies) and potential game changers (such as the role of the public sector in accelerating changes) should be taken into account? Overview A large number of existing and emerging challenges were mentioned. As in questions 1 & 2, many contributions focused on SwafS-specific areas of activity, but this time as challenges: education and schools (15), open access and open data (10), gender equality (6), scientific fraud, misconduct and ethics (2), and the ethical and social consequences of the rise of new media (2). A second set of responses focused on issues that relate to the relationships between science and society. These included bringing research and innovation to the market (7), the role of regulation in enabling or hindering research and innovation (3), and difficulties associated with public procurement such as those raised by new business models and technologies (3). A large subset of responses related to the emergence and practice of open science. These include the implications of open science on the practice and standing of science (11). Other issues raised included the challenge of developing new notions and means of measurement of scientific excellence (5), the challenges posed to science by increasingly project- and market-based funding models (3), and challenges to science's peer-review model (and its associated industry) (3). More 'societal' challenges included the (lack of) public understanding of scientific issues or negative opinions held by the general public of science and scientists (6), the need to increase understanding of innovation by end-users and citizens (3), and a perceived growing anti-intellectualism and anti-expert sentiment among citizens (7). Health and social challenges were also frequently noted. In terms of health, challenges raised included the sustainability of the current healthcare system (4), pharmaceutical development (costs and barriers to innovation) (2), anti-biotic resistance (2) and mental health (1). In the field of social affairs, challenges included migration (11), ageing and demographic change (4), and employment/employability/unemployment (4). Wider social challenges included growing or persistent inequalities (4), a perceived growing gap between the EU and its citizens (2), globalisation (2), corporate lobbying (1) and security (1). Finally, challenges posed by nationalism and populism were raised (7), often but not always in conjunction with the growing anti-intellectualism/distrust of experts noted above. Sustainability related challenges included climate change (8), environment and sustainability in more general terms (8), food (5), biodiversity (3), energy (3), water (3), and transport/mobility (1). Contributions mentioned one or more potential game changers, which are listed in the table following: 15

16 Potential game changers that should be taken into account in the SwafS Work Programme The public sector as a driver of innovation (x4) Gender equality Citizen lobbying (x3) Implementation research Citizen science (x3) Increasing role played by cities and regions Efficient regulatory environments (x3) Informal workplace learning ICT-based learning (x2) Local and decentralised solutions Training in RRI (x2) Mobility of researchers Informal and non-formal science education (x2) Recognition of innovation as a source of growth Genomics (x2) Robotics 3D printing Science centres & museums as promoters of RRI Blue growth Self-monitoring health apps The contribution of culture to R&I Sharing economy The steady growth of public-private partnerships Creativity in education (PPPs) Data analytics Technology in schools Decentralised systems of governance Text and data mining European Research Area Transdisciplinary research Financial incentives to integrate RRI in R&I Virtual communication Foresight methodologies Selection of contributions - "It is important to address ignorance, pseudoscience, fraud, plagiarism and other negative aspects", European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuCheMS), Belgium. - "The legal framework changes too slowly for this modern electronic information society. New regulation is built on top of old... Too much regulation and legislation exists to protect old business models, thus curbing radical innovation Open interfaces should be preferred, where possible, in order to give citizens and companies the opportunity to build upon existing infrastructure and information", the Federation of Finnish Technology Industries, Finland. - "The main existing challenge is to boost innovation and the arrival of products to the market. The European Commission is making efforts but it is perhaps necessary to promote cultural, institutional and structural changes to achieve real improvement. [This would involve interested parts of society] in the design of innovation, so that when it arrives to the market it has a lower probability of being rejected or at least the reasons for rejection might be known", Anonymous. - "Researchers' lack of time, pressure to publish, the belief that public engagement and excellence don t match, lack of knowledge about best practices, lack of courage to experiment with new methodologies, inability to see opportunities in failures all are still obstacles", Wissenschaftsladen Bonn (WilaBonn), Germany. - Challenge: "Distrust in science and scientist as one of the manifestations of a more general distrust in 'experts'", Naturalis Biodiversity Center, the Netherlands. - "Emerging challenges are: increasing water demand and availability together with globalisation, urbanisation, climate change, as well as the increasing water pollution by emerging (micro, nano, 16

17 etc.) substances that are becoming a limiting factor for growth and natural ecosystems", European Water Technology Platform (WssTP), Belgium. - "Interventional human brain technologies and therapies challenge the human self, and new biotechnologies such as genome editing and synthetic biology challenge the concept of life itself. Both strands should find their place in funded reflective research", Anonymous. - "European societies are currently challenged by waves of migration and a large number of refugees. This is accompanied by growing nationalism and political movements that threaten the European idea. Since science, and therefore also science communication, are inherently transnational, RRI has a potential integrating function for European societies, which should be taken into account when designing the next H2020 work programmes", Wissenschaft im Dialog GmbH, Germany. - "Open science has the power to transform how research and ideas are disseminated and communicated, just as fixed-type printing did in the West in the fifteenth century... As emphasised repeatedly by LIBER, TDM [Text and Data Mining] will be a game changer for research and for industry... evidence is emerging from the FutureTDM project that Europe may need a centre of excellence to support the uptake of TDM and knowledge transfer across sectors", Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER), the Netherlands. 17

18 3.4. Question 4 Which areas would benefit most from the integration of horizontal aspects such as the social sciences and humanities, responsible research and innovation, gender aspects, and climate and sustainable development? Overview This question was interpreted in different ways by contributors, resulting in a large number of "not stated" (N/S) responses. Nevertheless, there was clear support for integrating the aspects listed in the question either in individual parts of Horizon 2020 and/or across Horizon 2020 more generally. Figure 4 shows that contributors favoured integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH), RRI, gender, and climate and sustainable development in one or more areas of Horizon Just one response did not favour the integration of gender, and another response was "not sure" about integration of SSH (this was counted as not stated ("N/S")). 70 Fig. 4 - Cross-cutting aspects to integrate in Horizon Yes No N/S 10 0 SSH RRI Gender Climate Two additional horizontal aspects came up in responses. Eleven responses highlighted working within, across and beyond the traditional confines of academic disciplines and therefore well beyond integration of the Social Sciences and Humanities. In general, responses appeared to advocate working across disciplinary boundaries or even the breaking of them down rather than increasing dialogue between them. Hence, the term inter/transdisciplinarity is chosen here as a proxy for all of these responses, though it may not accurately reflect them all 20. Three responses highlighted the importance of involving, opening up to or focusing on all social groups (what might be termed a 'social gradient' or 'socially inclusive' approach). In terms of the areas to integrate these horizontal aspects into, 58 responses mentioned Societal Challenges, 31 LEIT, and 28 did not mention any area. While many contributions stated that all areas 20 Useful reflections on these terms can be found in Choi & Pak (2006) - Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med. Available at: Several contributions mentioned Inter/Transdisciplinarity in response to Question 2, but are accounted for in Question 4. 18

19 would benefit from integration of one or more horizontal aspects, many specified the area(s) that would benefit, as shown in the table below: Specific areas cited by respondents as benefiting most from integration of horizontal aspects SC 1 - Health 19 SC 2 - Food 3 SC 3 - Energy 2 SC 4 - Transport 2 SC 5 - Climate 17 SC 6 - Inclusive Societies 10 SC 7 - Security 3 Broken down by discipline, the following areas were identified as benefiting from integration of horizontal aspects and/or being integrated in Societal Challenges or LEIT: Education & pedagogy (x9) Economics & business (x3) Psychology & cognitive science (x3) Engineering (x2) Science communication (x2) Biology Communication science Computer science Geology Sociology Selection of contributions - "All areas would benefit from this process There is a need for interdisciplinarity and to create new alliances between all societal challenges to effectively address all citizens as innovators to achieve RRI objectives and mobilise disadvantaged groups. Research should develop synergies with science museums and centres to be more attractive to young generations of scientists and reinforce public confidence in science", Etablissement Public du Palais de la découverte et de la Cité des sciences et de l'industrie (EPPDCSI), France. - "Toxic online behaviour is slowly becoming one of the biggest challenges of the transition from the Industrial Era to Digital Era. Its impacts can be seen throughout society: any individual is in danger of becoming a target of an online lynch mob, cyber bullying is becoming more frequent in online forums, policy makers are struggling with hatred in social media, businesses are forced to find ways to protect their employees from cyber harassment, etc. It is a perfect example of an area where a wide horizontal approach is needed to address the problem", European Games Developer Federation, Sweden. - "Maternity care! Research needs to cross disciplinary boundaries of social, psychological, medical, behavioural, basic science, organisational, and economic expertise, among many others", Soo Downe (Professor and Chair of EU COST Action IS 1405: BIRTH), United Kingdom. - "Approaches that combine art, creativity and humanities with science and/or technologies are particularly powerful in terms of increasing the science capital of the general public, increase their awareness of societal challenges, and empower them to act as citizens", European Network Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite)/Association Européenne des Expositions Scientifiques, Techniques et Industrielles, Belgium. 19