Monday 02

Update on SwafS & RRI in Horizon Europe, the upcoming EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

Posted by Ulrich Schoisswohl from FFG, Austria - NewHoRRIzon project on 02 Dec 2019

Post by Ulrich Schoisswohl from FFG - originally published at the NewHoRRIzon´s project news section

A big thank you to everyone who came forward and supported SwafS and RRI in the public consultations on Horizon Europe launched by the European Commission!

We are relieved that our requests for a stronger consideration of SwafS and RRI have made it into the report on the web-based consultations. Considering the fact that there was no mentioning of SwafS and RRI before the public consultations this is indeed a big win!

The following section has been included in the part ‘Widening/European Research Area’ under the heading ‘on citizen science’ as the central feedback from the public consultations:

A significant number of responses stated that high levels of citizen participation in codesign (e.g. agenda setting) and co-creation (e.g. citizen science, user-led innovation) are required to meet the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. They stressed that research and innovation must take into account the needs, values and expectations of citizens, in line with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and seek to go beyond technological solutions to those that encompass social, economic and governance issues. These responses called for high levels of inclusion of society in research and innovation, specific actions to improve science education (e.g. working closely with schools and other educational establishments), the joint involvement in actions of researchers, businesses, policy makers and citizens (“quadruple helix”) to arrive at solutions that are adapted to societal needs, and interactive and innovative approaches to communicating and deliberating about innovation and science. Finally, these responses reminded that there is a large body of knowledge and existing networks that have developed from the Science and Society (FP6), Science in Society (FP7) and Science with and for Society (Horizon 2020) programmes, which should be leveraged and valorised to help ensure Horizon Europe’s success.

Source: Co-design towards the first strategic plan for Horizon Europe. A report on the web-based consultation and on the European Research and Innovation Days. Page 37

In addition to that there now seems to be an awareness that the wording with respect to gender issues is crucial when it comes to the integration of gender into research and innovation: there is now a more pronounced differentiation between ‘gender equality’ and ‘the gender dimension’ (See page 36 & 37 in the report)

You can find the full report here.

Thursday 17

Challenges for the further development & implementation of responsible innovation - some highlights:

Posted by Dr. Rene von Schomberg on 17 Oct 2019

On the occasion of the launch of the International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, a series of international events are taking place to discuss the challenges ahead of us for the further development and implementation of responsible innovation.

Three debates have taken place until now in Leiden, London and Brussels. The next one will be the 27th November in Manchester.

In this post you will find the agenda’s for the events in Leiden and London and the highlights of these discussions


12 September 2019 - Leiden University, Faculty of Social and Bahavioural Sciences


  • Introduction: Dr. Rene von Schomberg
  • Panel discussion on Challenges for Responsible Innovation
    • Prof. dr. Jeroen van der Hoven,Technical University of Delft
    • Prof. dr. Harro van Lente, Maastricht University
    • Dr. Melanie Peters, Director Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands
    • Prof. dr. Jacqueline Broerse, Free University of Amsterdam
    • Prof. dr. Paul Wouters, University of Leiden
    • Prof. dr. Sarah de Rijcke, University of Leiden
    • Dr. Vincent Blok, Wageningen University



19 September 2019, 18:00-20:00- University College London


  • Introduction: Dr. René von Schomberg
  • Discussion with audience and panel: 
    • Dr.Stevienna de Saille, Sheffield University
    • Prof. Andrew Stirling, Sussex University
    • Prof. Bernd Carsten Stahl, De Montfort University
    • Dr. Jack Stilgoe, UCL London
    • Dr. Melanie Smallman, UCL London
    • Prof Marina Jirotka, Oxford


Highlights of the discussion:

The following summary presents a series of bullet points based upon notes taken at the first two meetings held in Leiden (NL) and London UCL (UK). Both events opened with an introduction from Rene von Schomberg followed by panel member presentations and an open session of questions and points from the floor.

The points have been gathered under broad headings, but many are overlapping and broader in content than the titles here used, which are merely intended as a guide and were determined by the authors of this report and not the participants in the event.

The points were collectively gathered by Lucien von Schomberg, Rene von Schomberg and Jonathan Hankins.

The Direction of Movement

  • RI represents a  new  paradigm  for  innovation,  that  is  both  radically  critical  of  and  goes beyond  previous  (mainstream)  paradigmsof  market-innovation.  It facilitates  publicly funded research and innovation to primarily serve public goods, and requires institutional change including a transformation of the current research system that is shown to be too competitive, costly, and simply unproductivein terms of delivering on socially desirable objectives.
  • RI  should  avoid  being  too  challenge  orientated.  This may  leadto  empty  promises  and expectations, shallow understandings of science and society, and a possible ignoranceof the uncertainty underlying the innovation process.
  • Instead of introducing new concepts and implementationstrategies, RI should question how we are going to change the very agents of changeitself.
  • Current political leaders are using the tools of democracy to destroy democracy. One of the biggest challenges for RI is how to advance through means of deliberative democracy in such a context,that is accompanied by adecline in international cooperation and the governance of emerging technology.
  • RI  still needs to  employ  a  more  holistic  view  on  innovation  that  includes  alternative approachto our economy (e.g.circular economy), and other forms of innovation such as social innovation.
  • RI  should  build  on the normative  conditions that  might  help  to  bringabout  the kind  of political mobilization it requires.

Research and Methodology Related Issues

  • RI  should  not  merely  create  its  own  research  line, but  become a core element in  other researchprograms. 
  • RI  should  focus on  all  research  activities,  from  frontier  research  to  applied  or  societal challenge and mission-oriented research.
  • RI faces the difficulty of addressing the problem of scale, in that some innovation presents problems  because  of  its  scale.  We  can  find  many  examples  of  technologies  that  have become  problematic  due  to  their  mass  uptake  that  might  have  been  very  difficult  to foresee(Facebook for example).
  • How  can  an  RI  approach function  within  a  system whose  measurements of success  are based on GDP?

Interdisciplinarity and Broadening Involvement

  • RI  should  be  careful  not  to  impose  an  open  science  system  that  ends  up  being  just  as instrumentalas previous systems. Instead, it needs to brings us to a fundamentallyopen (i.e.   pluriform   and   diverse)  science  system   through   creating open infrastructures, enabling communities, inspiring researchers, and transforming academia.
  • RI should enable different actors to engage with RRI practices by having it reflected in the educational system.
  • There are many different levels of doing RI (i.e. at the individual level, company/university level,  and  at  the  national/international  level).  A  challenge  for  RI  is  to  connect  these different levels.
  • A big  challenge  for  RI  is  to  make  stakeholders  understand  that  they  all  have  different trainings  and  backgrounds,  which  in  turn  results  in  different  ways  of  thinking  about innovation.

Topics related to Power and Politics

  • RI should contribute to rethinking the power relations that shape our policies, keeping in mind  that  science,  research,  and  innovation should  primarily  resonate  in  the  societal context.
  • RI  should  articulate  a  political  dimension  of  innovation  that  successfully  provides industries with an incentive to engage in RI practices.
  • RI  should  introduce  a  new  politics  of  deliberation  by  creating  spaces  where  innovators and societalactorscan interact and converse in light of what could be seen as a new social contract between science and society.
  • There is the need for more democracy in innovation.
  • While RI has an enormous revolutionary potential, it may also end up in a conventional context of managing innovation. The uncertainty surrounding RI on this point raises the question of to what extend it will be able to go beyond the conventional context.

Businesses and their Engagement

  • RI  should  not  be seen  as too  imposed,  especially  not bycompanies  that  are  actually already engaging in RI practices without per se calling it as such. On the contrary, the RI community should engage with these companies and play a major role in collaborating with them.
  • One  of  the  biggest  challenges fo rRI  remains  the  tension  between  RI approaches and maximizing economic profit. There is  demand for a concrete examplethat demonstrateshow investing in RI would be economically successful.
  • RI  should  articulate  practical  guidance  for  companies  on  how  to  practice  RI  (such  as current successful examples in  practice,  codes  for  conduct,  certification  schemes and standard settingapproaches).
  • Whereas universities and Scientists have ethics committees and other forums where they can raise issues related to RI,businesses do notbut may require them.


  • The term RI is often perceived by scientists as a criticism to what they are doing. One of the  challenges  of  RI  lies  in  how  to  successfully  engage  themwhich  requires  positive uptake of the concept and terminology.
  • RI  should  use  a  language  that  is  less  complex,  thereby  enabling  the  inclusion  of  actors outside of RI circles. 
  • How can RI speak to the younger generation that is looking for solutions to climate change from a personal perspectiveand who are currently mobilizing on a huge scale?
  • RI requires scientists and technologists to engage in a language that is not their own and that they have not been  trained in, presenting a hurdle to uptake and shared understanding

Friday 12

The teaching of research integrity in Europe - state of the art & ways to improve it | Take part in the survey launched by the INTEGRITY project

Posted by Sandra Rossi, INTEGRITY project on 12 Jul 2019

The kickoff meeting of the INTEGRITY project was held last February 2019, in the city of Utrecht. The consortium encompasses 11 European partners from nine countries, and intends to develop strategies and tools that make education for  research integrity more effective

Led by the University of Utrecht, the project’s mission is to build knowledge and develop tools aimed at supporting high school teachers and university professors who are responsible for training related to scientific integrity and research ethics. The educational resources, which the project aims to develop, include a European standard on training for responsible conduct of research, SPOCs (small private online courses), podcasts, educational games, good-practice teaching modules, and a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course).

Under the leadership of the UZH Center of Ethics the project is now mapping the status quo of research integrity training across ten European countries, and conducting a systematic review of empirical findings on research integrity training. Combined with surveys among students (conducted by another partner), these findings will provide the knowledge basis for the developmental activities of the project.

Anyone involved in the teaching of research integrity is kindly invited to participate in the survey. The survey is completely anonymous and it takes 15-20 minutes to complete it. The survey will be active until the 28th July 2019 & is accessible at the following links:




Friday 14

Pathways towards a more inclusive Nanotechnology development in Europe – > Findings from NANO2ALL

Posted by Dora Fazecas, NANO2ALL project on 14 Jun 2019

In the past months, the NANO2ALL team has elaborated a roadmap document which conveys findings from the different NANO2ALL activities, principally from its participatory national and European dialogues and its case studies on past and current societal engagement practices in nanotechnology R&I. The roadmap addresses primarily EU and national decision-makers in the science and technology field with competence in the domain of nanotechnology research and innovation (R&I). It outlines the challenges and opportunities for the development of nanotechnology in Europe within the framework of Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI). The roadmap highlights the conditions that have to be in place for enhanced inclusiveness (societal engagement) across the nanotechnology R&I value chains, and outlines recommended actions to help fulfil these conditions. 

You can download the roadmap from here.

  • There is a deeply-felt need for inclusiveness (societal engagement) and integration of societal perspectives in the nanotechnology R&I ecosystem 
  • Societal engagement approaches implemented over the past 15 – 20 years in Europe have not reached a full array of societal actors from different European contexts and often did not establish continuous interactions or trust-building between societal actors
  • There is a need to extrapolate lessons learned from these initiatives to inform the future inclusive processes in nano- and other emerging technologies 
  • The proven role of independent intermediaries (for instance science centres, professional moderators, science communicators) in the facilitation of interactions on responsible nanotechnology development should be reinforced.
  • The inclusion of societal representatives and their views should be enabled at certain stages of decision-making. 
  • Some expert feedback suggests that interactions should be established for tackling diverse topics and these are not always “nano-specific”. 
  • Several conditions have to be in place simultaneously (presented below), in order to truly enhance societal engagement across nanotechnology R&I value chains. 


Trajectory 01: Evaluate past societal engagement activities in research and innovation in nanotechnology.
  • Commission an evaluation study of SE in nano in the past years
  • Use knowledge from such an evaluation to elaborate a plan for the promotion of SE in nano and in other emerging technologies
Trajectory 02: Adapt existing frameworks (or create new ones where not existing) to increase the involvement of all actors, incl. citizens and their representatives in R&I decision-making at all stages.
  • Mandate and finance selected EU level and national platforms 
  • Adapt current public consultations for setting R&I priorities using challenge-led forms of SE
  • Adapt existing EU, national and regional research and innovation funding programmes to foster societal engagement in actual nanotechnology R&I processes 
  • Set up advisory services to support the implementation of societal engagement in nanotechnology R&I 



Trajectory 01: Promote capacity-building and reflections on nano- and other new and emerging technologies via the formal education system.
  • Implement funding programmes for open nano collaborative projects bringing schools in contact with universities and other stakeholders 
  • Promote the uptake of nano- and other emerging technology related teaching materials 
  • Provide a fast track framework for interaction between teachers and researchers through existing platforms

Trajectory 02: Promote scientific culture and critical thinking on nano- and other new and emerging technologies among citizens via lifelong learning and science communication.

  • Fund (incl. through a dedicated strand for science and society matters in Horizon Europe) informal lifelong learning programmes & interdisciplinary funding schemes supporting citizen-science projects embedded into a unique standardised procedure 
  • Develop a clear set of criteria (performance indicators and guidelines) on the quality of science communication activities 


Trajectory 01: Foster RRI awareness and competence within the nanotechnology R&I community and incentivise the adoption of RRI by relevant institutions at regional, national and EU levels.
  • Develop a long-term plan for the promotion of awareness-raising and capacity building to members of the R&I community with regard to RRI principles and practices (training programmes coupled with structural changes to the education system aligning academic programmes with RRI goals). Innovation ecosystems (EIT, EIC, etc) should act as multipliers to foster engagement and provide evidence of the benefits of RRI.
  • Induce structural and institutional changes within research organisations, including the adaptation of the evaluation frameworks of these entities and researchers to RRI goals.
  • Develop and continuously update EU and national level measures in order to incentivise the implementation of RRI. Build on existing frameworks eg. CSR) and set up reward schemes, RRI check-list, encourage bottom-up and organic RRI practices.

Wednesday 29

Join the LIV_IN Virtual Summit & help us co-create the way we will live in 2030

Posted by LIV_IN Project on 29 May 2019

Digitalization, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence hold the potential to improve citizens' daily lives and to create new business opportunities, while helping to address some of the the grand challenges the world is facing today. The Virtual Summit on Responsible Innovation for Smart Homes and Smart Health (June 11-12, 2019)  will explore how this immense potential can be navigated in a responsible, inclusive and sustainable manner. 

Through this post we want to provide you with some more info about some of the speakers and topics that will be discussed at the Virtual Summit

Can European values shape the global race for innovation?

The European Union's fundamental values include human dignity & rights, freedom, democracy, equality & the rule of law. Can these European values shape the global race for innovation? And how can Europe provide the conditions for world-class innovations that are successful in the market & contribute to solving societal challenges at the same time?

  • Compare policy & industry perspectives on technology leadership, European values & responsible innovation.
  • Explore citizen expectations toward policy makers & innovative companies.
  • Share your views on the role of European values for building our digital future.

Will Artificial Intelligence be your friend, your tool or your boss?

Leadership in AI is key to competitiveness. At the same time societal trust is at risk. Therefore companies feel the
need to prevent unintentional damage and misuse. Ethical AI ensures that the technology considers values, human
rights and transparency.

  • Learn where AI is already implemented and how it will affect your daily life.
  • Gain insights the risks and opportunities of AI in smart health and smart homes
  • Explore and discuss ethical guidelines and principles for responsible AI.

How much health data are you willing to share? 

Health data is sensitive data. While health data exchange between organizations is hotly debated, we privately collect
and share health data through wearable devices. Pooling and using such data might help to develop innovative
treatments and preventive care.

  • Explore the potential of data driven preventive health care.
  • Compare European and US perspectives on health data, privacy and responsibility.
  • Discuss what needs to be done to mitigate risks and prevent misuse.

What will your home look like in 2030?

Our homes are becoming smarter and more connected. Individual technologies and integrated smart home solutions increasingly reshape the way we organize our daily life at home. When designed responsibly smart home solutions may enable greater convenience, accessibility and sustainability, while remaining affordable.

  • Learn how smart home technologies fit within a circular economy.
  • Gain insights into trends, applications and implications of smart home solutions.
  • Explore how smart home innovations can enable autonomous living for people with disabilities.

Responsible start-ups: Value for money or money for values? 

Startups are at the forefront of innovation in Europe. Venture capital and access to finance are critical in the initial phases of business development. But are responsible innovation and sustainable business models rewarded by investors? And how can innovation support organizations promote responsibility in startups?

  • Learn how business angels and innovation support organizations foster responsible startups.
  • Explore success factors and barriers to responsible innovation in startups & SMEs.
  • Discuss the potential of startups and investors for driving responsible innovation.

What is the business case for responsible innovation? 

Responsible innovation promises a lot. Better ideas, social acceptance, lower risks, solutions that matter for society,
and innovation that contributes to sustainable development. But is there a business case for responsible innovation in times of hyper competition and ever shorter time to market?

  • Assess the added value of implementing responsible innovation in business.
  • Compare open, responsible and sustainability innovation approaches.
  • Explore how to benefit from linking CSR and innovation-management.

Towards a human-centered, collaborative & inclusive future?

Human-centered innovation approaches are increasingly popular among designers and innovators. Particularly in the context of Responsible Innovation a deep understanding of the needs and wishes of people is relevant in order to generate solutions that provide inclusive value. But what is needed to make innovation truly inclusive? How can meaningful participation be implemented in practice?

  • Discover how Design Thinking can be leveraged for Responsible Innovation.
  • Explore ways of including the needs of people such as impaired persons or deprived social groups into responsible ICT solutions.
  • Discuss requirements and best practice for meaningful citizen engagement in innovation.


Experts from companies of all sizes, researchers and innovators, entrepreneurs and CSR managers, responsible innovation experts and RTD managers, citizens and anyone interested in these topics are invited to join the Virtual Summit. Register now here. You can download the complete programme from here

Monday 13

Responsible Innovation for Smart Homes & Smart Health | Join the Virtual Summit on June 11-12, 2019

Posted by Norma Schönherr, LIV_IN Project on 13 May 2019

Digitalization, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence hold the potential to create new business opportunities while helping to address the grand challenges Europe is facing today.

The Virtual Summit on Responsible Innovation for Smart Homes and Smart Health explores how this
immense potential can be navigated in a responsible, inclusive and sustainable manner. 

Reasons to Join the Virtual Summit

  • More than 50 confirmed high-level speakers and successful business leaders
  • Six tracks full of inspiration and discussions
  • Hundreds of participants from around the world
  • Virtual exhibition of successful projects and tools
  • Video competition with attractive prizes
  • No travel, low environmental impacts

Six tracks full of inspiration and discussions

  1. Innovating for the Future We Want - Share your vision of responsible innovation and listen to experts that are shaping the future of innovation
  2. Responsible Innovation for Smart Homes - Experience how can smart home technologies
    support our daily lives and discuss how can we better address peoples‘ needs
  3. Responsible Innovation for Smart Health - Learn how companies leverage smart health tech
    for digital inclusion and how to address privacy concerns related to connected health.
  4. Tools and Methods for Responsible Innovation - Learn about the latest tools and methods from
    human-centered design, accessibility, co-creation, open and user innovation experts.
  5. Launching our Virtual Community Platform - Connect with other experts and participate in joint
    actions to find solutions to your most pressing challenges.
  6. Responsible Innovation Champions - Explore the agenda for more inclusive, sustainable and impactful innovation across Europe and share your story. 

Virtual exhibition of successful projects and tools

In the virtual exhibition, we feature initiatives, tools and cases that provide insights and resources for implementing responsible innovation, such as:

  • Patient innovation
  • Ethical guidelines for technologies
  • Value and gender sensitive design
  • Self-check of innovation practices
  • Design thinking

Get inspired and begin your responsible innovation journey equipped with the latest tools and resources

Who we are

LIVING INNOVATION is the first industry driven initiative on responsible innovation funded by the European Union. It was started by 14 partners from industry, civil society and research and involves major
companies of the ICT and the health care sector.

We co-create the way we will live in 2030 - combining creativity and business acumen, human-centered design and responsibility.


Join the Virtual Summit on Responsible Innovation for Smart Homes and Smart Health and connect with a community of high-level experts  – from the convenience of your desk. 

Register here and reserve your spot!

You can download from here the Conference Brochure

Tuesday 07

Challenges for Responsible Innovation - you are invited to join the conversation!

Posted by Dr. Rene von Schomberg on 07 May 2019

On the occasion of the book launch of the International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, a series of international events will take place to discuss the challenges ahead of us for the further development and implementation of responsible innovation.

Below you will find the agenda’s for these events- with guest lectures and panels. Participation to these events is free but because of limited available seating, prior registration is necessary



12 September 2019 - Leiden University, Faculty of Social and Bahavioural Sciences


  • Introduction: Dr. Rene von Schomberg
  • Panel discussion on Challenges for Responsible Innovation
    • Prof. dr. Jeroen van der Hoven,Technical University of Delft
    • Prof. dr. Harro van Lente, Maastricht University
    • Dr. Melanie Peters, Director Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands
    • Prof. dr. Jacqueline Broerse, Free University of Amsterdam
    • Prof. dr. Paul Wouters, University of Leiden
    • Prof. dr. Sarah de Rijcke, University of Leiden
    • Dr. Vincent Blok, Wageningen University



19 September 2019, 18:00-20:00- University College London


  • Introduction: Dr. René von Schomberg
  • Discussion with audience and panel: 
    • Dr.Stevienna de Saille, Sheffield University
    • Prof. Andrew Stirling, Sussex University
    • Prof. Bernd Carsten Stahl, De Montfort University
    • Dr. Jack Stilgoe, UCL London
    • Dr. Melanie Smallman, UCL London
    • Prof Marina Jirotka, Oxford



3 October 2019 - DG Research and Innovation, Brussels


  • Welcome Address by Director-General Jean-Eric Paquet- Value-Driven Research and Innovation 
  • Guest speaker: Prof. dr. Alfred Nordmann- Technical University Darmstadt - The Ties that Bind- Collective Experimentation and Participatory Design as Paradigms for Responsible Innovation 
  • Introduction. Why responsible Innovation? Dr.Dr.phil René von Schomberg 
  • Panel discussion on Challenges for Responsible Innovation
    • Robert Madelin, FIPRA- Public Affairs Consultancy, and former senior advisor on Innovation, Director-General of CONNECT/SANCO
    • Prof. Dr. André Martinuzzi Head of the Institute for Managing Sustainability Associate Professor at WU Vienna Vienna University of Economics and Business Reponsible Innovation: The challenges for Industry
    • Prof. Alexander Gerber-, Science Communication- Rhine-Waal University, Germany Responsible Innovation: Challenges for Science Communication
    • Prof. Ellen-Marie Forsberg- Managing Director Østfoldforskning, Norway: Challenges for Research Practices
    • Olga Wessels: European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) ECIU is determined to change the way of delivering education from degree-based to challenge-based: Responsible Innovation: Co-creation with industry, public organisations, society and academics
    • Kurt Vandenberghe, Director- DG Research and Innovation
  • Discussion with audience& panel


Anyone who is not able to attend is invited to participate through submitting his/ her question/comments. You can phrase your question/comments in terms of the hurdles you see for the implementation of responsible innovation, for example for research and innovation practices, for business operators or for the engagement of knowledge actors. A selection of the questions will then be submitted to the panel-discussants and a summary of responses of the panels will be published here

Wednesday 10

From MoRRI to SUPER_MoRRI: Monitoring as reflection & learning, NOT representation & control

Posted by Wouter van de Klippe, SUPER_MoRRI project on 10 Apr 2019

This post by Wouter van de Klippe was originally published at the CWTS´s Blog  on March 20th 2019

The MoRRI project had the aim of establishing a monitoring system that measures how, where, and to what extent Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become interwoven within European Research practices.

The SUPER_MoRRI project aims to build on this monitoring system through empirical and theoretical work. Currently, SUPER_MoRRI is in its nascent stages, which offers a unique opportunity to reflect on potential improvements to be made from MoRRI.

In this blog post, Wouter van de Klippe aims to provide an impetus to re-conceptualize the function of monitoring throughout the SUPER_MoRRI project.

Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: the MoRRI project

The goal of aligning research processes and outputs with societal needs is a bold one. Its scale is evidenced by, for example, the 10/90 problem in biomedical research which refers to the observation that diseases accounting for about 90% of the world’s disease burden receive only 10% of biomedical research attention (Global Forum for Health Research, 1999; Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007). In the Horizon 2020 framework programme, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) was employed to take steps towards this alignment. Within the European Commission, RRI aims to spur this alignment through encouraging institutional change towards facilitating the working together, throughout all stages within research and innovation, of a diversity of societal actors with a multiplicity of value commitments (European Commission, 2019). This means actively working towards a European research area (ERA) more conscious of and responsive to the needs and values at stake within research and innovation.

RRI as a concept has a diversity of (theoretical) literature describing it. Sometimes it contains divergent components depending on context and approach. For example, von Schomberg (2013) emphasizes that RRI should be anchored to the ‘EU charter on fundamental rights’ and the ‘grand societal challenges’. In contrast, Stilgoe and colleagues (2013) and Owen and colleagues (2012) emphasize the importance of inclusive participatory exercises where a diversity of stakeholders can influence research practices according to their value commitments. Furthermore, they encourage the application of the dimensions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness within their frameworks.

Despite RRI’s fluid and sometimes contentious definition, the “Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe” (MoRRI) project sought to measure the degree to which the RRI agenda had permeated European research practices, and if it had, to locate where and why. While there did exist some diversity of approaches to measure RRI within MoRRI, the primary focus was the construction of quantitative indicators to measure the presence of RRI within the European Science system. The construction of these indicators was completed through the analysis of data from surveys, bibliometric and altmetric work, and other data sources. These indicators are indeed informative, and the intended use of these results is to encourage institutional learning, which is commendable. However, I believe that by thinking primarily in terms of the outputs of these indicators, we have lost sight of the opportunity that exists in being more creative and reflexive throughout the process of their creation. 

In this blogpost, I hope to make evident this opportunity of thinking more creatively about the function of the act of measurement and monitoring. Fortunately, this blog post is in the context of a second life for the MoRRI project, SUPER_MoRRI, where this shift in attention could be applied. SUPER_MoRRI builds on the initial aims and results of MoRRI by continuing with the task of monitoring the presence of RRI within the European research area. Additionally, SUPER_MoRRI has the aim of investigating the relationships between RRI policies and applications and their subsequent societal and democratic benefits. Below, I will further explain what I mean by shifting towards reflection on the possibilities that exist within the process of monitoring instead of only considering the outcomes of measurement and their accuracy. This blog takes inspiration from work within Science and Evaluation Studies (SES) research group at CWTS, and in particular, work describing the ‘evaluative inquiry’ approach in the context of research evaluation. I will briefly introduce these ideas now.

The evaluative inquiry and SUPER_MoRRI

In the context of a hypothetical research evaluation within the field of science and technology studies (STS) Fochler & de Rijcke (2017) note that evaluative inquiry requires rethinking the purpose of evaluation from a bureaucratic task of measurement and reduction towards an opportunity to “produce and represent the meaning and purpose of STS work”. This means that evaluation need not entail the production of indicators with the aim of representing an underlying reality. Instead, evaluation can be an opportunity to create a space for articulating what is valued within the evaluated and why. In describing a markedly less hypothetical example within the evaluation of CWTS, Paul Wouters describes the act of applying a “future oriented” evaluative inquiry as an “exercise in collective future making, rather than a game of trying to score as high as possible on a set of indicators that were more or less relevant to our work” (Wouters, 2017). Again, evaluation in this way should be thought of as a moment of reflection for what the evaluated and evaluating collectively want the future look like, and examine potential ways to create that future.

So what has this to do with SUPER_MoRRI? Although the rhetoric of monitoring may at first glance seem neutral, this task of measurement and indicator creation still carries normative and evaluative weight behind it (Davis et al., 2012, p. 9). This is because this task of measurement operates according to the assumption that the existence of RRI implementation is desired, although this is often left implicit. Thus, monitoring in this context can be understood as evaluative, and the insight gleaned from the SES literature is applicable. As discussed above, the methodology employed within MoRRI (the original project) was primarily one of data extraction to support subsequent analysis and create visualizations with the aim of representation which is then intended to facilitate future institutional learning. This aim is exemplified in the development of the 36+ ‘keys’ used to measure RRI, the development of ‘country cluster maps’ that represent the RRI profiles of nations, and the aims of refining, expanding, and validating these different indicators throughout SUPER_MoRRI. The emphasis within the descriptions of both projects appears to be placed almost entirely on the validity of these indicators and their outputs – the potential opportunity to transform research practices throughout the act of their construction is ignored. In contrast, insight from the evaluative inquiry approach would allow for this space of monitoring to become a forum for which the monitored can express how (or whether) they envision and apply RRI. Monitoring and evaluation can be understood as an opportunity to express what a future of RRI within European science looks like, without losing sight of the context of the evaluated.

Rethinking the opportunities within monitoring and measurement

Currently, SUPER_MoRRI is in its nascent stages, meaning that this is a time of reflection on what should be improved from MoRRI. If indeed we are to rethink the possibilities of what monitoring and evaluation might possibly resemble in SUPER_MoRRI, that means asking an entirely different set of questions in this time of reflection than might intuitively arise. For example, where many of the closing recommendations in the final report for MoRRI were focused on calling attention to the need to assess the reliability and coverage of indicators, rethinking evaluation would mean thinking less in terms of an indicator’s representational accuracy and would instead require focusing on its transformative potential. This means asking questions like:

  • How might the results of MoRRI be used as a discussion point with those being evaluated in SUPER_MoRRI?
  • Better yet, how might the results of MoRRI be discussed in a participatory way to instigate further institutional change?
  • Do the evaluated researchers or representatives from research funding organizations agree with the 6 keys of RRI that were selected within MoRRI?
  • Is there divergence between (national, institutional, disciplinary, etc…) contexts in the relevance or interpretation of these 6 keys, and what components of RRI have been excluded as a consequence of selecting these keys?
  • Do those being evaluated identify with the results of MoRRI, why or why not?

The opportunity to glean knowledge from these questions is considerably limited when asking them in the context of closed response questionnaires or surveys. Additionally, there is an immense opportunity to use existing tools that have been developed in the context of RRI-projects as part of open evaluative exercises. For example, the RRI tools project has developed an online platform of tools that can be used to foster learning and discussion regarding the implementation and meaning of RRI. Why not use this as a discussion point in an open evaluation exercise and explore the multiplicity of ways the lessons of this tool can be implemented in a contextualized way for those being evaluated?

There is no need to worry for those readers who feel a sense of dread in the abandoning of indicators in these evaluative exercises. As Fochler and de Rijcke (2017) note, opening up evaluation need not preclude the use of indicators altogether. Indeed, throughout these more open evaluative exercises, surveys or metrics can be used and created for subsequent analysis to encourage institutional learning. Furthermore, the aim of SUPER_MoRRI is to measure and monitor the presence of RRI throughout the ERA, hence the task of monitoring and representation need to remain a core component of the project. The difference I hope to encourage is in the position of these indicators in the exercise: from the end goal with the aim of representation, towards being one component of many and as a tool for opening up discussion (Ràfols et al., 2012).

Thinking more openly about what monitoring and evaluation could resemble in the context of SUPER_MoRRI is a return back to some core tenets of what RRI was intended to mean. Stilgoe and colleagues (2013) remind us that “the ways in which the concept of responsible innovation is being constituted should themselves be opened up to broad anticipation, reflection and inclusive deliberation”. Monitoring RRI by utilizing closed response surveys, questionnaires, and other highly quantified methodologies risks serving to reify narrow interpretations of its application and constitution. Fortunately,  SUPER_MoRRI is an opportunity to focus on the transformative potential of monitoring and assessment – reflecting on this transformative opportunity will better equip us to develop more open potential RRI enriched futures, as diverse and inclusive as were initially hoped for.

This blog post benefitted from feedback given by and conversations with Sarah de Rijcke and Ingeborg Meijer.


In case you want to join the conversation and comment on this post you can do so here 

Tuesday 12

Call for Submissions | LIV_IN Video Competition | Pitch Responsible Innovation to Industry Leaders

Posted by Teresa Iglesias Lopez & Heike Christiane Vogel-Pöschl | LIV_IN Project on 12 Mar 2019

-> How would you pitch Responsible Innovation to industry leaders?
-> Why should Responsible Innovation be adopted and how

We would like to share your responsible innovation pitch with industry leaders! 

In a 3-to-4-minute video, tell business & industry leaders about responsible innovation and win a prize of €1.000!

++Deadline: Extended until 28th May 2019++


Submit your pitch!

  • No need to be a professional videographer: all you need is a smartphone or camera to record a video and a persuasive pitch!
  • Create a video of you (or you together with a friend!) pitching responsible innovation to industry of 3 to 4 minutes (preferably in English but other languages are accepted too, if the video is submitted with English subtitles)
  • Check the Call for submissions for further guidelines.


The best pitches submitted will be widely shared with industry leaders, receive a cash award and public recognition in a virtual award ceremony.

  • 5 runners-up will be selected:
    • The 3 best submissions will be awarded cash prizes of €1.000, €750 & €500
    • The 2 remaining competitors will receive a surprise
  • Winning videos will be
    • Showcased during the LIV_IN Virtual Summit in June 2019 to an audience of 300 business actors, scholars and other experts in the field
    • Featured on the LIV_IN website
    • Promoted through LIV_IN Consortium partner networks

About the competition

Responsible Innovation helps address today’s grand societal challenges. People get the chance to take part in the conversation about innovations that will possibly turn their lives upside down. At the same time, it brings new, attractive business opportunities to companies. Responsible Innovation is predominantly used within academia and among policy makers, but industry representatives have not yet fully explored its benefits.

This video competition aims at transforming the academic discourses on Responsible Innovation into a language that resonates well with industry. In 3 to 4 minutes, participants pitch their notion of Responsible Innovation to industry leaders, including why responsible innovation should be adopted and how. 

Selection process

The best submissions will be selected by an expert panel of academic and industry representatives. The panel will select finalists based on pitch quality and on the accurate description of responsible innovation.

Five runners-up will be selected a week before the Award Ceremony, notified by email and invited to take part in the Award Ceremony happening during the Virtual Summit in June 11-12. During the award ceremony, the three winners will be officially announced and invited to the stage. 

Video Qualification Criteria

The judges will look for an engaging and accurate submission. Your entry will be judged on the following qualifications:

  • Video length of 3-4 minutes
  • Academic accuracy regarding the concept of responsible innovation in the pitch
  • Pitch quality: well adapted communication of that content to the proper audience, i.e. industry leaders (tell the story… why, what, how – see Video Pitch Guidelines)
  • Persuasiveness of the pitch

Who we are

This video competition was initiated by Living Innovation (LIV_IN). 

LIV_IN is an initiative started by 14 partners from all over Europe, including major industry leaders, civil society and research organizations. We have joined forces to co-create more responsible approaches to innovation in the areas of smart homes and smart health.


For more info about the call see here 

Monday 04

"The predominant focus in academia is still publishing work that is read by ten other experts and never has any impact on anything. That’s the battle"

Posted by Social Observatory of "la Caixa" on 04 Mar 2019

Interview with James Wilsdon, professor of research policy at the University of Sheffield- originally published at Social Observatory "la Caixa"

James Wilsdon is professor of research policy at the University of Sheffield, and has led studies in the UK and abroad to analyse the use and effect of metrics in research assessment and management. He is vice-chair of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), a collaborative platform across national and international science advisory organisations that fosters evidence-informed policy formation.

How can funders (agencies, governments, foundations, etc.) use metrics to assess the excellence and impact of research? Do we agree on what excellence means and what impacts are desirable? 

This is an important part of the debate. And let me put the word “excellence” in quotes because sometimes it’s a problematic term. It obscures as much as it illuminates in terms of what we are valuing in the system. The balance between conventional criteria of research excellence (primarily assessed through citations, patents, etc.), alongside the growing emphasis for research to have broader forms of impacts on society and the economy, creates a need for more responsible use of metrics. 

Broadening out the range of metrics we use and accompanying them with sensible, qualitative peer review can be very helpful. Some altmetrics, for example, can be a way of recognising citations by non-academic bodies. If you treat these altmetrics as an important part of your assessment process, it will encourage academics to engage with other audiences than the academic community.  

Are altmetrics going to change the way we assess research outcomes?

A lot of the focus around altmetrics has been tilted towards social media. And that’s interesting, but it’s a rather superficial proxy for really understanding whether research is having an impact on important societal problems such as changing the practice of the criminal justice system. What’s happening in social media can give us some useful information, but I think it would be dangerous to link funding to those indicators. 

In general, we are at a very early stage in developing effective indicators for societal impacts. There’s room for developing newer and more helpful impact metrics.

What is the Metric Tide?

The Metric Tide was the final report of an independent review of the role of metrics and quantitative indicators in the management and assessment of UK research. It was commissioned by the UK government and I chaired it. I worked with a group of 12 experts – scientists, social scientists, bibliometricians, research funders – for about 18 months, and the report was published in the summer of 2015. At that time, there was growing discussion across the global research community about metrics and their uses. DORA (San Francisco declaration on research Assessment) and the Leiden manifiesto are two initiatives that had taken this discussion forward.  

Why did the UK government commission this work?

The narrow, specific reason was linked to the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Every 5-6 years, the REF assesses the UK national research system based on peer-review subject panels and allocates about a third of the public research budget across universities and across all disciplinary areas. In 2014, the government wanted to look at whether the whole exercise could be done in a more efficient way by just using metrics, so the Metric Tide review was initiated.

The broader aspect was the greater significance attached to quantitative indicators and metrics of various kinds in the management of research, in the allocation of funding, in the assessment of individuals and research groups in universities. We wanted to look at that broad phenomenon in a more holistic way and see what this “raising tide” of metrics means for the research culture, research practice, and the way we govern and direct our science and research system. The report also generated interest outside the UK. 

One of the outcomes of the report is that we need more metrics, but they have to be responsible. What does responsible metrics mean?

We came up with this term “responsible metrics” to convey both the possibilities and the pitfalls of metrics usage. We are all aware of the many instances in which certain indicators get used inappropriately in research assessment and management processes. The most obvious and egregious example is the misuse of journal impact factors. We know from a large volume of empirical work that the correlations between the quality of an individual paper and the impact factor of the journal it was published in are poor. And yet we constantly see impact factors used in inappropriate ways. 

Responsible metrics are used in a sensible, robust way that can be a valuable part of the management of the research system. But we need to be very alert to the context in which they are used. 

What should responsible metrics look like? 

Data should be as robust as possible. We want to make sure there is enough coverage of the different disciplines and that different research outcomes are accounted for. And we need humility in the way we use metrics: they should support but not supplant peer evaluation. Academic research is a complicated endeavour by its nature and you can achieve a more nuanced assessment of research with some combination of metrics and peer review. 

In addition, there are other factors such as transparency, i.e., that those being assessed understand the nature of the measurements and indicators that are being used to assess their work.  And we also need diversity: a diverse set of indicators and research outcomes – from papers to exhibitions to data sets – but also of different career paths.  

What would be good examples of non-responsible metrics versus responsible metrics?

An example of a bad practice could be the ResearchGate score. The website ResearchGate is used by many academics as a convenient way to share their work with peers. The site also awards you a score, but it’s very unclear on which algorithm basis the score is calculated. That is not a responsible metric. The other obvious example would be many international university and research rankings, which are methodologically and statistically dubious. 

An example of a good practice in recruitment or assessment of individuals, e.g. for promotion, would be to ask researchers to highlight in a narrative way the two or three contributions to research that they consider to be the most important in their career to date and why. And then the panel can read that work. It doesn’t matter what journals the articles were published in. You are bringing more qualitative, evaluative dimensions to that process. 

What about the concern that peer review might be very vulnerable to intrinsic and systemic biases? 

Ideally, you need a mix of quantitative indicators and qualitative expert judgement. Peer review is not perfect; we are all aware of its weaknesses. But, at the same time, it’s rather like democracy: it’s the least bad system we have developed as the academic community to govern ourselves. 

Peer review, when it’s done well, is formative as well as summative, i.e. we are not just trying to evaluate but also to improve the quality of each other’s work, whereas metrics are most commonly only summative. 

But it’s true that metrics can also act as a more objective and positive countervailing force in places with a culture of patronage or nepotism or sexism. And this would be, in fact, a responsible use of metrics. 

Are you seeing any rapid change following the Metric Tide and other related initiatives? 

There has definitely been very visible and interesting discussion and a resulting awareness about this topic over the last 5 or 6 years. And that’s to be welcomed. But it would be naïve to say that the tide has completely turned. We are in a period of transition, of contestation and debate. I expect it will take some time for the different actor systems to align and take action. And it’s not in any way certain that all will resolve in the optimal way. 

Do you agree with some of the criticism that when valuing impacts sometimes we confuse the needs of society with the needs of industry?

I would always include business and commercial uptake of research as part of any assessment of impact. Working with business can be as important as working with a government or with a community. In essence, the job of research assessment and management is largely to be neutral. We want a research system that contributes across the board, which has lots of impacts in different places and in different sectors.

I think the tension is not as much between research engagement with business versus engagement with other parts of society. I think the main problem is still engagement in any way with society. The predominant focus in academia is still publishing work that is read by ten other experts and never has any impact on anything. That’s the battle.  

What about scientists complaining about a system that is trying to micromanage them? Is the new assessment system we are promoting serving us better than the old system? 

We don’t want all academics to be writing only for academics, but that should still be an important part of their work. Discovery-led science is still something we want to support. What we are talking about is about finding the right balance. And across Europe, in the US and in many other countries, we’re seeing a shift towards more applied and impact-oriented research.

If we tip the balance so far that suddenly there’s not enough discovery-led science taking place, it would be damaging. To keep that balance right is a perennial question of research policy. There’s no correct answer. 

Any guidelines on how to keep that balance?

If we take a step back and we consider the scale of the scientific academic enterprise, the extent to which it has grown over the past 30 years, I think it’s right to ask the question: are we seeing a corresponding increase in the contribution of that activity to meeting the really pressing needs of our economy and society? That’s the big policy funding question. Of course, people are going to be nervous and resistant to changing the incentive system, but more must be done to ensure that the investment that we, as countries, are making in science and research is really delivering what we need.

So, what are the tools and expertise that policy makers need to do that job? 

This brings us back to research on evaluation and metrics. A good system will be very reformative, it will want to understand the different ways in which it is contributing, over different timeframes and sectors. I think the REF is a good approach. It can be improved, but it’s an attempt to do what we are discussing.

Research on research, or the science of science, is a growing field to address some of these challenges. It is not only about assessment.  It is also driven by concerns over scientific practice, reproducibility, integrity, perverse incentives and broader research culture – all topics that are higher on the agenda now than they were 5-10 years ago. 

The shift towards societal impact does not need to damage the fundamental research system. We need to better understand how the system works, the range of impacts, and find a balance across funding systems. These are the types of discussions every system should be engaging with to come up with the right answers. There’s no magic recipe, but lots to be done.

--- Interview by Silvia Bravo Gallart

Monday 04

Marina International Conference 2019: Science, Innovation & Blue Society | Call for papers

Posted by Delphine El-Khassawneh from the Marina Project on 04 Feb 2019

Nausicaá will host the “Science, Innovation and Blue Society” conference on 12-13 March 2019.

This conference is organised as part of the MARINA Project, an EU funded initiative aiming at bringing stakeholders together around Responsible Research and Innovation applied to marine challenges. 

Participants of the conference will be European researchers and scientists working on marine resource management and conservation for a Blue Society. Participants are invited to submit a paper. Specific themes of interest include but are not limited to:

  • Tourism and coastal cities
  • Pollution caused by human and sea pressures
  • Fisheries and aquaculture
  • Renewable energy (wave, wind, tidal)
  • Marine changes caused by climate change
  • Marine biotechnologies
  • Sea transportation
  • Deep sea mining
  • Ocean literacy and education

Submitted papers should describe experience, case studies, outcomes of projects or research activities related to the marine domain, and where the implementation of the RRI or Blue Society concepts made a difference in the impact on the research, innovation and European society. Please click here for full details of the Call for Papers.

We would also be delighted to welcome you as a participant if you do not wish to submit a paper. To register as a participant only, please click here.


We hope that you will be able to join us! In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us if you need more information.

Delphine El-Khassawneh , Marina Project Officer

Wednesday 30

Join the COMPASS Final Conference in Brussels | INNOVATION RELAUNCHED | On course to RESPONSIBLE business practices

Posted by Alex Esteban & Katharina Jarmai from the Compass project on 30 Jan 2019

COMPASS is an EU-funded project that supports Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) from emerging technology industries to manage their research, development and innovation activities in a responsible and inclusive manner. After three years of intensive work the project is coming to an end, and is launching an online platform containing a number of co-creation methods and tools that can help companies to embed responsible approaches in their innovation strategies.

On Tuesday, March 26, the project's Final Conference will be taking place in Brussels. The event will be a meeting point for companies, researchers in the area of responsible innovation in industry, innovation support organizations and policymakers. We would like to invite you to join us for the event and to share your experiences and insights with the rest of the participants.

Participants will be introduced to three main outputs of the COMPASS project:

  1. the online self-check tool
  2. the co-creation method for roadmap development
  3. roadmaps towards responsible innovation in nanotechnology, cyber security and biomedicine.

Program highlights:

  • Panel discussion between company representatives, investors and researchers
  • Presentation of the responsible innovation online self-check tool
  • Interactive roadmap co-creation session

Participants will receive first-hand accounts from pioneer companies, and will have the opportunity to share their own experiences and insights in the field of responsible innovation.

See you in Brussels!

Alex Esteban & Katharina Jarmai, Compass project


For updates and further details on the program please visit our web. Book your place here 

Following the conference, at 5pm, FET2RIN will host a special pitch session for FET projects, to provide a stage to ten disruptive future emerging technologies. Pitches will be assessed by a judging panel made up of business angels, early stage investors and EU|BICs.

Tuesday 15

Join the BigPicnic Final Festival in Madrid!

Posted by Helen Miller, BigPicnic Project Co-ordinator on 15 Jan 2019


BigPicnic: Big Questions – engaging the public with Responsible Research and Innovation on Food Security

Final Festival event – 27th February 2019, Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid, Spain.

We invite you to join us for the BigPicnic Final Festival - the finale to the BigPicnic project, celebrating the achievements of our Partners and audiences.

BigPicnic is a Horizon2020 project that brings together the public, scientists, policy-makers and industry to help tackle the global challenge of food security. Botanic gardens, have been co-creating exhibitions and participatory events with people from all walks of life, to generate dialogue and build greater understanding of food security. Our collaborative approach gives a voice to adults and young people, communicating their views to policy-makers, sharing ideas, encouraging debate on the future of our food and achieving Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).

The festival is a free one-day public event featuring a range of speakers, workshops, stands and activities to continue the work of BigPicnic in generating active interest and dialogue around food security. 

The event will bring together educators, policy-makers and stakeholders to celebrate the findings of the project and discuss how the policy recommendations can be implemented in Europe and beyond. This will happen through a series of high-level talks and debates as well as training sessions and a market place, where attendees can explore the resources developed through the project. There will also be the opportunity to share stories, ideas and traditional culinary delights associated with the BigPicnic partnership, which represents 13 countries.

For more information and a draft programme please visit our web. Book your place here

See you in Madrid!

Friday 23

Nano in cosmetics: an industry case of RRI implementation

Posted by Andrea Porcari - PRISMA project on 23 Nov 2018

This post by Andrea Porcari was originally published at the RRI - PRISMA Blog (8 October 2018)


The application of nanomaterials in cosmetics has always been a matter of debate, raising some fundamental questions: what is the matter with using nano? Is there a real added value for people? Is it safe?  What are the uncertainties for human health?

As a typical unnecessary good, consumer acceptance of a cosmetic product is strongly affected by both functional and non-functional features of the product. Nanomaterials could be used to improve the efficacy of the product, for example ensuring filtering of UV radiation or better shelf-life, as well as to enhance aesthetic properties, as for example the colour of a make-up.

Though consumers might welcome new features given by the use of nanotechnologies, this conflicts with risk perception of new technologies, which is always higher for products getting in close contact with the human body such as cosmetics.

Cosmetics are as well the first sector where specific requirements for nanomaterials have been introduced in regulation (Reg CE 1223/09), forcing industry to make a specific safety assessment and declare the use of nanosubstances in the product (labelling).

A perfect case for RRI, with conflicting stakeholder positions, not straightforward/ambiguous social benefits, and regulatory challenges has to be faced.

One of the RRI industrial pilots (Nanocube project) conducted within the Prisma project is addressing a very interesting case: the use of nanomaterials is combined with the development of a cosmetic product based on natural and organic ingredients.

The NanoCube project, coordinated by Archa and Techa (Tuscany region funds POR FESR 2014-2020) develops innovative technologies aimed at producing nanocapsules and nanosystems providing controlled release of bioactive agents for cosmetic and biomedical applications. A key research challenge is to make use only of natural ingredients, including the nanocapsules, and processing steps without the use of chemical (synthetic) solvents. The final product is expected to fulfil specific voluntary international certifications for organic and natural cosmetics.

The system promises to have a number of advantages: reducing the risks for workers and users in handling and using the active substance; reducing the use of active substances compared to conventional treatments; avoiding the use of preservatives; and improving the efficacy of the final product (compared to benchmark products).

Archa has worked together with Prisma partners to understand the RRI aspects involved in the NanoCube project, and best ways to address them in product development. Key RRI issues identified include the adoption of a precautionary approach in the risk management of nanomaterials, addressing specific ethical values in product development (in line with demanding ethical certifications for natural and organic cosmetics), as well as the need to address issues related to  risk perception and user acceptability in relation with nanotechnologies.

As one of the RRI actions planned within Prisma, these aspects have been discussed in a multi-stakeholder dialogue held on June 13th, 2018 in the premises of Archa. This dialogue has been carefully designed, ensuring participation of all relevant actors along the value chain and supply chain. About twenty delegates contributed to the event, including researchers, producers, retailers, authorities, certification bodies and professional users active on both cosmetics and nanomaterials. As a follow up, a consensus document has been prepared, shared and revised with all delegates.

Efficiency and quality, in particular product performances and improvement of the shelf-life without the use of any preservative, have been identified as the key added values of using nanotechnologies. A distinguishing feature of NanoCube is the use of nanomaterials based on organic substances, with a much lower risk profile compared to inorganic nanomaterials (the ones generally considered in discussion on cosmetics and nanomaterials).

Several “RRI” actions for product development emerged by Prisma actions, and in particular the dialogue event. These include planning of further testing activities on nanomaterials to support product claims, specific risk management actions for nanomaterials during production phases, regular dialogue activities with stakeholders – in particular developers, producers, certification bodies, distributors – and development of a specific communication strategy to ensure transparency in the use of nanomaterials all along the supply chain.

What has become clear in working with Archa for the Prisma project, is a strategic approach of the company to social responsibility and Responsible Research and Innovation. Specific procedures are in place on quality, worker’s accountability, risk management and ethics of R&I and production process, sustained by voluntary certification such as OHSAS 18001, SA8000, ISO 14001, ISO 9001. Specific CSR and RRI tools (examples are provided in the Prisma RRI toolkit) are implemented at project level, on a case-by-case basis. Social values and principles are part of the company culture and as well of regular company procedures.

Besides those related to NanoCube, Prisma activities are helping Archa and Techa to reflect on how to further integrate a socially responsible and responsive approach to R&I, starting from the early stage of innovation, structured and integrated in the decision process and company policies. This could help Archa to become a testimonial that promotes RRI principles also for other companies and actors.

Tuesday 18

Join the SMART-map Final Meeting in Brussels!

Posted by RRI Tools on 18 Sep 2018

The final meeting of the SMART-map project will take place on the 1st of October 2018 at Hotel NH Brussels Bloom in Brussels, Belgium.

The event - a full day conference followed by a cocktail reception - aims to actively engage participants in discussing the project results, discover inspiring examples on how to implement responsible innovation in industrial realms, and contribute to a lively debate on the future of responsible research and innovation (RRI). Representatives from companies in precision medicine, 3D printing and synthetic biology will come together with civil society organisations and policy makers, as well as industry associations, funders, think- tanks and strategic consultants, to share inspiring experiences. You can find more information about the programme of the event here 

Funded by the Horizon 2020 programme, SMART-map started in May 2016 and comes to an end in October 2018. Its aim is to provide innovators with tools that will help them meet society’s needs, concerns and expectations about new technologies.
During the conference, SMART-map project partners will present three specially designed roadmaps, i.e. the “SMART Maps” on Precision Medicine, Synthetic Biology and 3D printing in biomedicine. Each SMART Map contains a collection of concrete tools companies can use, and the results of industrial pilots implementing some of the tools in each of the three fields.

These experiences offer relevant examples of how RRI can help companies discover new business opportunities, anticipate trends in the market and improve their business and technological roadmaps while accounting for new values and societal instances.
The conference will also include a poster session where relevant RRI initiatives will be presented. Attendants are welcome to use this opportunity to communicate their own experience in the field of RRI to other conference participants. If you wish to attend, you can register by using this link. On the registration page you will find information about the conference venue and you will have the possibility to submit a poster proposal.

Thursday 26

RRI in industry: finding the right tools for the job

Posted by Dr. Pim Klaassen - Prisma project on 26 Jul 2018


There can be no doubt about it: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has taken off as directive force in the fields of Research & Innovation (R&I) policy and governance. For a couple of years now, under the name of RRI, researchers, innovative businesses, policy makers, CSOs, educators and others have been making investments towards a R&I system that puts societal needs and desires at its center, that is outward- and forward-looking, and that aims to contribute ethically sound solutions for a sustainable future. Funding is available for those promoting and further developing RRI, prizes have been awarded for those successfully putting it into practice, and tools have been collected together to facilitate embracing any of its many aspects.

Despite all the good work, however, RRI’s width and conceptual complexity might still pose a threat to its success. Taking a structured approach to making one’s research and innovation efforts conform to societal needs, ethically sound and sustainable for one’s institution as well as the wider society and planet, can be quite a task. Furthermore, people might be skeptical of RRI’s potential for improving their research and innovation, doubting that they could really benefit from putting it to use. Especially in the sphere of industrial innovation, where time is money and resources are scarce, there is reason to believe that the hurdles between hearing about RRI and doing RRI are too many and too high. In the PRISMA project, we want to change that. 

To assist herein, in the PRISMA RRI Toolkit we have collected a small number of relatively easy-to-use tools that can help innovative companies, specifically those working in SMEs and on emerging technologies, to flesh-out some of RRI’s essentials. In eight different companies and research projects in the fields of biotechnology, autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things and nanotechnology, pilots implementing RRI have been undertaken, amongst other things experimenting with the tools we collected. The pilots help us collect more information on how they contribute to making industrial research and innovation more responsible. This is expected to be available before the end of 2018. In the meanwhile, the tools are also made available to Dutch enterprises through the portal of CSR Netherlands. And of course, you are invited to take a look at and to use them yourself. 

To provide some guidance in advance, the tools are classified as contributing to one or more of the following purposes: “opening up to the world”, “thinking of the future” and “taking care of people and planet”.

To end, let us succinctly explain each of these and give an example of a pertinent tool for each.

  1. Tools serving the aim of "opening up to the world" can help you in connecting to (networks of) stakeholders, identifying societal needs, making information accessible, or contributing to corporate accountability. For instance, you can use BSR’s guide on how you can make stakeholder engagement meaningful for you company. Following BSR’s five-step approach will help you identify your stakeholders, setting your ambitions as regards engaging them, and acting in accordance with those ambitions. 
  2. Tools serving the purpose of "thinking of the future" stimulate reflection and anticipation, can help you in meeting societal needs and values and sensitize you to possible unintended effects. The Stage-gate model® provides an example of a tool for these purposes. It helps you manage your innovation process from the phase of developing first ideas to product launch, and to do so in an anticipatory fashion, incorporating everything from economic to safety or moral issues in your decision-making.
  3. Tools aimed at "taking care of people and planet" for instance help you contribute to the health, safety and well-being of your employees, consumers and wider groups of stakeholders. Also tools dedicated to the promotion of environmental sustainability are included in this class. Just one example of a tool in this category, focusing in this case on questions concerning gender in research and innovation, is the Gendered innovations website by the EC. This will help you discover the creative power of sex and gender analysis for innovation, and provides you with the means of acting on it.

Of course, these are only some examples of tools that might help you and your business innovate with societal needs and values at the heart of your process and product. For more information and experiences with RRI that PRISMA’s pilot companies have gained, please visit us at

Friday 06

Want to know more about the HEIRRI training programmes and formative materials?

Posted by RRI Tools on 06 Jul 2018

Ten new training programmes on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) were presented in April at the HEIRRI second conference.

Packaged in an informative and educational format, the HEIRRI training programmes present various different sides of the RRI concept and are based on innovative and participative methodologies, following a “Problem-based learning” approach. They are designed for different educational levels: bachelor’s, master’s, PhD, MOOC, Summer schools, train-the-trainer, secondary school teachers. Presented in multimedia formats, they can be found online and in open access in the RRI Tools platform

Studying Responsibility: A Module-Based Integration of RRI into Bachekor's Programmes

BACHELOR / Between 20H and 50H

This training programme gives an introduction to different concepts of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and related the ideas, rationales, and aims. In the modules of this programme, different cases are presented, discussed, and engaged with through different problem-based learning activities. Additionally, pratical approaches on how to address RRI will be provided.

Doing and Experiencing Dialogical Reflection on Research and Innovation

MASTER / More than 50H

The course focuses on different interactive approaches to facilitate dialogue on R&I developments, and their societal implications and impacts. These include but are not limited to scenario workshops, consensus conferences, public Technology Assessment, Round Table, (Neo-)Socratic Dialogue, or World Café. The respective R&I developments to be discussed in the course should be selected and outlined by the students themselves.

Enhance your Thesis

MASTER / More than 50H

The course provides room for investigating, reflecting, and discussing societal implications and possible impacts of research and innovation processes. As reference points for this deliberation, different concepts of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) will be used. Students will discuss a research or innovation case example (“What are ‘responsible’ research and innovation?”) before turning to their own master’s theses. Together with their colleagues, each student will identify and discuss RRI aspects of their thesis (“Present your thesis”) and then individually further explore on them (“Investigate your thesis”). They will present and discuss their findings, and reflect how they could practically deal with them (“Enhance your thesis”).

Responsible PhD: RRI and PhD Research Projects

PhD  / Between 20H and 50H

This seminar will introduce PhD students to different concepts of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and initiate deliberation on how to make a PhD research project more responsible. Students will read about and discuss several concepts of RRI in groups and then apply them to concrete case examples of R&I processes. Furthermore, participants will introduce their own PhD research projects or first project ideas and identify possibilities to make them more responsible by using various concepts of RRI.

Supporting RRI: Developing RRI Guidelines for PhD Candidates

Building on basic RRI literature and in-class discussions, students will develop responsibility guidelines for their academic setting (and potentially for their respective discipline), which are viable for the students’ further PhD research.

Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation in Higher Education


In this online course, participants will reflect on what responsible research and responsible innovation means, and learn and discuss ideas and concepts of RRI as well as some practical approaches to promote RRI. One focus in this regard will be on teaching and learning RRI in higher education.

Facilitating Reflection on Responsible Research and Innovation


In this workshop, participants will envision possible futures connected to R&I developments. They will reflect on strategies and ways how to steer these developments and their possible wider societal and environmental impacts using concepts of RRI. Then, the course will especially focus on how to integrate such reflection on issues of RRI into higher education teaching and training. Together in groups participants will develop different approaches and designs for teaching RRI to various higher education audiences.

Considering Responsible Research and Innovation by Design

MASTER / PhD / More than 50H

The summer school deals with questions of how to make research projects as well as their processes and outcomes more responsible. Participants have the opportunity to first explore their own understandings of what constitutes responsible research and then deal with specific concepts and aspects of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as well as concrete case examples. Their own deliberations as well as the concepts of RRI will then give orientation in their own independent group work on a research proposal that incorporates ideas of RRI. The summer school participants are free to define the concrete topic of their research proposal within the setting of the course. Thus, the course content depends to a great extent on the participants’ own deliberations and discussions.

Concepts and Practice of Responsible Research and Innovation

MOOC /  More than 50H

This Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) introduces the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and the different approaches towards it. It will show inspiring RRI practices and activities and give participants the opportunity to investigate RRI in a role-play exercise. Participants will develop first ideas on how to implement RRI into practice and will be given the chance to exchange their views.

Science open to society. Schools open to science.


This programme explains the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation to secondary school teachers. It is comprised of five parts addressed to help guide the teachers on how to include an RRI perspective into different high school contexts.

For more info on how to use the HEIRRI training programmes - you can download the HEIRRI Booklet

This booklet presents the HEIRRI teaching resources and explains how to use them in the endeavour of teaching RRI in universities.










Thursday 21

Education towards a responsible society, transforming universities through RRI

Posted by RRI Tools on 21 Jun 2018

More than 150 people from 43 countries came together in Vienna last April 27th for the second and last HEIRRI Conference celebrated under the title “Education towards a responsible society, transforming universities through RRI”. Professionals from all over the world met in Vienna for an enriching and thought-provoking conference full of participation and interactive sessions. 

Now that the HEIRRI project is getting closer to its end, the conference was the best occasion to present the work and results accomplished in these three years, and a great moment to consolidate the community committed to the teaching of responsible practices in research and innovation. 

The HEIRRI training programmes and formative materials were first launched at the Conference. They are mainly based on innovative and participative methodologies, following a “Problem-based learning” approach, and designed for different educational levels: bachelor’s, master’s, PhD, MOOC, Summer schools, train-the-trainer, secondary school teachers. The training programmes are presented in multimedia formats and can be found online and in open access in the RRI Tools platform

These resources give higher education institutions (HEI) the tools to strengthen their researchers’ and innovators’ capacity for anticipation, reflexivity and engagement; aiming to train citizens and not just only highly skilled workers. Professors, university authorities, researchers, managers, politicians and all other people interested in higher education are encouraged to explore the HEIRRI resources, adapt them to their contexts, edit them freely, try them out and integrate them in their teaching practices. We invite users to share their experiences with the HEIRRI training resources through the RRI Tools Forum

As part of the training materials, HEIRRI is developing several very compelling videos, dealing with some of the grand challenges faced by society today, to be used when teaching and learning about Responsible Research and Innovation, to foster discussion and reflections around key aspects of RRI. Two of these videos have been presented until now, one about Ageing, the other about Food

More information:

Tuesday 22

Several job opportunities (Ethics; EU R&I Policy; Applied Ethics; Science communication & science museums; Science policy & higher education; Education & Health; Urban Food Systems & public participation; RRI; Gender Studies; Ethics of Technology)

Posted by RRI Tools on 22 May 2018

  •  Research Analyst or Senior Research Analyst with expertise in ethics at Trilateral Research (London)

Trilateral Research, a London-based enterprise specialising in research and the provision of strategic, policy and regulatory advice on new technologies, is seeking to engage immediately a Research Analyst or Senior Research Analyst with expertise in ethics.

The successful candidate will have some expertise in one or more of the following fields:

  • Applied ethics
  • Ethics assessment of technology
  • Responsible research and innovation (RRI)

The post-holder will be expected to liaise with project partners and clients across the EU and internationally and to deliver high quality research and project outputs in a collaborative and supportive research-intensive environment in which short and demanding deadlines are frequent.

It will be a plus if the candidate has a good understanding of the ethical, legal (including human rights issues), socio-economic issues related to artificial intelligence,  big data analytics and related emerging technologies.

Specific job responsibilities include:

  • Performing research work related to current projects, writing case studies, reports or sections of reports, policy briefs and developing other deliverables as required to fulfil contractual obligations.
  • Researching and writing content for grant proposals and tender submissions.
  • Writing content for peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as part of projects, or as an outgrowth from projects.
  • Carrying out empirical research and contribute to the preparation and writing of deliverables (reports).
  • If necessary, attending and/or presenting at conferences and workshops, involving occasional travel outside the UK.
  • Undertaking any other special projects that may be established as a priority by the Directors for purposes of advancing either business development or fulfilment activities.

We will process on a rolling basis and earlier candidates will be considered first.

For more info see here

  • Research Advisor (National Contact Point NCP) for the European Research & Innovation Programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) at the Euresearch Network Office in Bern

Euresearch is an information and advisory service on the European Research and Innovation Framework Programmes. It is organised as an association and is supported by the federal government. Euresearch has a Network Office in Bern and Offices all over Switzerland

Starting Date: 1 September 2018 or upon agreement.

In this role you will inform and advise researchers and other clients from the public as well as from the private sector in Switzerland on funding and partnering opportunities offered by the European Framework Programme for Research & Innovation (Horizon 2020) and related initiatives.

Your main activities will be:

  • obtaining, processing and disseminating information related to the Horizon 2020 programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions on various channels (Euresearch Network, website, social media, etc.)
  • advising and training active or potential clients individually and in groups with regard to these programmes and activities (such as giving trainings or commenting on draft proposals to be submitted)
  • reaching out to and maintaining good contacts with individual clients as well as with the relevant institutional stakeholders at national and international level

The ideal candidate holds a PhD, has gained research experience as a postdoc or in the private sector, and has a sound knowledge of the research landscape in Switzerland.

We expect very good knowledge of German, French and English (oral and written), good social skills and work ethics, especially during busy periods. You are a team player, at ease in a multicultural environment, and able to adapt the Euresearch services to the clients’ needs. The place of work is Bern, and the position will involve national and
international travel activities of approximately 15%.

Deadline for applications: 25 May 2018.

For more info see here
  • Assistant Professor of Applied Ethics at Radboud University (Nijmegen)

​In the near future, the process of digitisation will change our society even more radically, and will assume an even greater significance. There is a steady increase in the influence of algorithms on governmental and professional decisions. Transport, communication, privacy, health, safety and warfare have already undergone a thorough transformation. The ethical standards surrounding all these issues are under pressure, and must in some cases be invented anew. As a member of the Practical Philosophy chair, you, our new Assistant Professor of Applied Ethics, will be involved in education and research, as well as in administrative duties at the levels of the faculty and the chair. You will teach ethics at all levels of the Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes at our own and at other faculties, and also supervise students doing internships or Master’s theses. 
In addition to teaching, you will be involved in educational development at both faculty and programme levels. Moreover, you will be actively involved in research at the Center for Contemporary European Philosophy (CCEP), in particular into ethical issues surrounding the above-mentioned issues, and contribute to the acquisition of externally financed research projects.

Application deadline: 27 May 2018

For more info see here

  • Marketing and Communications Manager at Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin 

Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin is looking to appoint a visionary, talented, creative and experienced Marketing and Communications Manager to attract, engage, inspire and develop an audience expected to exceed 350,000 per annum. 

As the Marketing and Communications Manager, you will work primarily on the development and implementation of all marketing and communications activity for Science Gallery Dublin, with a particular emphasis on deepening digital engagement and innovation. Science Gallery is a communications-led organisation with a high level of marketing, content development and social media skills and activity distributed throughout the team. Therefore, you will act as
the project manager for marketing-led projects, enlisting the expertise and building dynamic project-focused teams around you as required, but also on a support basis on other projects where you, will, in turn act as a consulting expert.

You will report to the Director of Science Gallery and work closely with the Operations Manager, Programme Manager, Educational Manager, Technical Manager and Development team. This position plays a key role in creating organisational alignment across audience development and engagement objectives, it brings together the activities of the institution, ensuring that they are communicated with the Science Gallery voice and within the brand guidelines. You will work directly with communications, marketing and fundraising teams at Trinity College Dublin. You will also form a strong relationship and collaborate regularly with Science Gallery International, the organisation established in 2012 with the goal of establishing a network of Science Gallery nodes worldwide.

You will have a proven track record in youth communications, a contemporary interpretation of marketing and branding, with particular emphasis on the potential of digital to transform audience engagement, as well as a fearless appetite for experimentation, a hacker spirit, an ability to promote advocacy, and both strong local and international networks. You will have extensive management experience, working within organisations that require flexibility and an understanding of the culture of the organisation as a whole. You may have gained this in a cultural or non-profit setting, but may also have worked in a commercial environment. You will have a knowledge of the public affairs environment, as well as a demonstrated ability to support internal communications initiatives.

Closing Date: Wednesday 30th May 2018

For more info see here

  • Project and Policy Officer (Research and Innovation) at the European University Association (EUA) in Brussels

​EUA is seeking to recruit a motivated professional to implement a wide range of university-related activities aimed at strenghening the capacity of universities in the field of research and innovation and their representation at European policy level. The position involves gathering information from the EUA membership and other relevant sources, the organisation of meetings and events and building relationships with external partners to provide evidence-based support for policy development. The work relates specifically to the implementation of activities in the framework of Open Science including the EUA Roadmap on Research Assessment, the EUA Roadmap on Open Access, citizens’ science and the engagement of universities in this area.

The role and tasks of the Policy Officer, reporting to the R&I Director, include:

  • Gathering, processing and analysis of information from EUA membership and other relevant sources for evidence-based policy development. This may include, for example, survey implementation, data analysis and reporting, contributing to the development of project proposals, implementation of their activities and management, including budgetary matters and reports;
  • Liaising with EUA members and relevant outside partners;
  • Preparing and organising events and meetings;
  • Producing information material both within the R&I activities and projects, and for outside partners, e.g., EUA website, newsletters;
  • Contributing to the development of EUA R&I, evidence-based policy work and positions;
  • Assisting and representing EUA at internal and external meetings and events;
  • Other tasks as requested.

Candidates are encouraged to apply as soon as possible, as applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis. Deadline: 31 May 2018

For more info see here

  • Education Programme Manager at EIT Health (London)

Are you an energetic, proactive educational programme manager who wants to help drive innovation in the healthcare system?

EIT Health is one of the largest healthcare initiatives worldwide. We are a public-private partnership between the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union, and more that 140 world leading organisations spanning key areas of healthcare, such as pharma, MedTech, payers, research institutions and universities.

The role is an exciting opportunity to work in the world’s largest network of health institutions to foster projects that inject an entrepreneurial approach into European healthcare education. Day-to-day this includes:

  • Supporting in the development, submission, evaluation and implementation of educational projects
  • Connecting academic and non-academic partners across Europe to develop innovative education proposals
  • Driving ET Health’s educational strategy throughout our partners
  • Working with a network of Education Programme Managers in Europe to connect partners throughout the network.

Deadline for applications: 3rd June 2018

For more info see here

  • ALLEA (All European Academies) is seeking a full time Head of Communications for the EU-funded project “Science Advice for Policy by the European Academies” (SAPEA)

  • Starting date: As soon as possible, ideally 1 July 2018
  • End date: 31 October 2020 (provisional termination of SAPEA grant)
  • Location: Brussels, Belgium 


Spanning the disciplines of engineering, humanities, medicine, natural sciences and social sciences, SAPEA is a Consortium of five European Academy Networks (Academia Europaea, ALLEA, EASAC, Euro-Case, FEAM) that brings together the outstanding knowledge and expertise from over 100 academies, young academies and learned societies in over 40 countries across Europe. 

Working closely with the European Commission Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, SAPEA provides timely, independent and evidence-based scientific expertise for the highest policy level in Europe and for the wider public. SAPEA is part of the European Commission Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) which provides independent scientific advice to the College of European Commissioners to support their decision making. 

The project is funded through a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme running from November 2016-October 2020.

Main duties and responsibilities

The Communications work of SAPEA is central to the Consortium’s activities. The HC will lead the Communications Office, which will disseminate SAPEA’s outputs and build outreach and awareness of SAPEA’s work, including via relevant media channels. He/she will work with the European Academy Networks, their member academies, and the European Commission to communicate the Consortium’s work to key audiences, helping to promote public awareness and transparency. This position is responsible for maintaining the SAPEA corporate identity, and for curating and administering the Consortium’s website and social media presence. 

The HC’s responsibilities and tasks include in particular: 

  • Develop and deliver public engagement activities in a range of formats; ensure that the Consortium’s activities are communicated efficiently and effectively to target audiences, including influential stakeholder groups, and act as the first line of information for all enquiries from the media, representing the Consortium’s interests and policy positions accurately and responsibly at all times;
  • Manage the effective planning and delivery of the Consortium’s news output in close cooperation with the Scientific Advice Mechanism Unit of the European Commission;
  • Manage the budget for communications work and deliver all communications activity within agreed budgets;
  • Build relationships with journalists and other multipliers to increase understanding of the Consortium’s work and the value of scientific advice in general; develop ideas for stories, features and broadcasts as well as other forms of public engagement activities that showcase the work of the Consortium;
  • Manage a network of contacts, including science academies, partner networks, EU institutions’ communications offices and other relevant scientific stakeholders, and disseminate information about the Consortium’s work to these contacts, e.g. via a regular newsletter or other forms of dissemination;
  • Research new media contacts as appropriate for the Consortium’s work, in cooperation with member academies;
  • Manage and maintain the Consortium website, social media accounts, and the project’s on-line database of reports; coordinate, upload, update and manage content provided by, or produced in close cooperation with, others in the Consortium;
  • Attend meetings of the Consortium’s Board and Coordination Team and work closely together with SAPEA’s Senior Scientific Policy Officer, Coordinator, and Scientific Policy Officers. Regularly and directly report to the Consortium’s Board about the progress of the communications work, compiling press coverage for reporting purposes;
  • Provide advice and guidance (e.g. regarding the media strategy of a proposed action). Support and assist the Consortium Chair, Board Members, working group members and speakers in their interactions with the media;
  • Prepare the Consortium’s print publications, liaising with designers and layouters, as well as the providing metadata for reports.
  • Proofread all SAPEA publications prior to publication

Deadline for applications: 4 June 2018

For more info see here

  • Researcher with interest in community-led initiatives to an international research project at the University of Sheffield’s Urban Institute

Mistra Urban Futures is a research and knowledge center with headquarter in Gothenburg. It is funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra), the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) and a regional consortium of seven organisations in the Gothenburg City-Region.

Mistra Urban Futures aims to support the development of cities that are fair, green and accessible through local co-production partnerships – called Local Interaction Platforms - and international comparative research. The collaboration framework, Realising Just Cities, provides a shared orientation under which local hosts and partners across different sectors can develop transformative activities for sustainable urbanisation.

As part of comparative research between different Local Interaction Platforms, Sheffield-Manchester has initiated a project called ‘Self-Organising Action for Food Equity’ (SAFE). It is led by Dr Nick Taylor Buck at the University of Sheffield’s Urban Institute. The University of Sheffield hosts and co-finances the Sheffield-Manchester Local Interaction Platform (SMLIP) working across the Sheffield and Greater Manchester city-regions in the UK.

The SAFE project is using the urban food system as a lens for self-organising governance systems. Sheffield, Greater Manchester and Gothenburg are at pivotal points regarding their food systems, as all are about to embark on the development of comprehensive food strategies. An important aspect of the Gothenburg component of the SAFE project is to reciprocate with the goals of Gothenburg’s Applied Food Strategy (AFS), currently a testbed of the EU funded project Urban Rural Gothenburg (Stadslandet Göteborg) supported by Mistra Urban Futures Gothenburg platform.

A mixed peer Action Research Team (ART) will be convened in each of the three participating cities – Sheffield, Oldham/Manchester and Gothenburg. As a Research associate you will be responsible for convening and managing the ART in Gothenburg. The Gothenburg component of the SAFE project will be connected to Urban Rural Gothenburg. Urban Rural Gothenburg aims to achieve socio-economic sustainability through improved conditions for green innovation and green business development between the city and the countryside.

Major responsibilities

The primary task of the researcher is to support the research project through the Gothenburg case. You will work with relevant academic and non-academic partners to synthesise a rangeof knowledge forms through a variety of activities including desk-based reviews, literature reviews, interviews, learning visits to community-led initiatives in Gothenburg and convening talks, workshops and other knowledge exchange events.

The researcher will also create and lead a special Action Research Team (ART) in Gothenburg for the project, which will liaise directly with similar ARTs in Sheffield and Manchester.

Lastly, an important aspect of the research project is to reciprocate with the goals of Gothenburg’s Applied Food Strategy (AFS), currently a testbed of the project Urban Rural Gothenburg. As such, the task of the researcher is to work closely with the sustainability strategist responsible for the AFS to make sure that the research project delivers continuously in the applicative dimension.

A prerequisite is the possibility to travel as part of the job between Sweden and the UK occationally.

Position summary

Part-time temporary employment from 15th of August 2018 until 31st of December 2019. We primarily target persons employed by Chalmers or Gothenburg University, with opportunity to take on the assignment within their original employment position, in agreement with responsible manager. In that case, Mistra Urban Futures finances salary costs including social security costs and OH expenses up to 35 percent, in accordance with the agreement between Mistra Urban Futures and Mistra (Dnr C 2016-0508). Potential excess of OH expenses are funded by the home department.


We are looking for a researcher with a PhD in a relevant area of study, with a specific interest in community-led initiatives, for instance around food justice. Since the project involves both sociological and technological aspects of knowledge creation, we particularly welcome STS scholars. It is meritorious if you have experience of working with action research or similar forms of participatory research or co-production of knowledge.

It is desirable that you have the ability to work independently, but also that you can analyse and solve problems collectively. Since you will create and lead a mixed peer Action Research Team, the ability to communicate effectively with people at varying levels of seniority and across sectors is desirable. Experience of organising and facilitating different forms of knowledge exchange is also desirable.

Application deadline: 9 of June 2018

For more info see here

  • Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Global Sustainability Institute (GSI) - Anglia Ruskin University (Cambridge)

​The Global Sustainability Institute (GSI) was established by Anglia Ruskin University in 2011 as part of our University commitment to sustainability in research, teaching and operations. We’re looking to recruit an exceptional Post-Doctoral Research Fellow to support the EU H2020 RRING (‘Responsible Research and Innovation Networking Globally’) project which launched in May 2018 and will end in April 2021. You’ll be responsible for supporting a desk-based study of state-of-the-art governance approaches to Responsible Research & Innovation in the context of 7 different key geographies across the world, and with regard to energy, water management, digital/ICT and the bio-economy. 

With a degree plus a PhD or Professional Doctorate, you’ll have excellent advocacy and interpersonal skills, as well as a track record initiating or contributing to collaborative projects. You’ll also have a keen interest in being interdisciplinary, with the ability to critically engage with literatures spanning e.g. Responsible Research & Innovation, Development, Justice, Sustainability Science, Gender, Science Education, Ethics, Public Engagement, and/or Innovation Studies. You’ll also have the ability to work independently with limited supervision. 

Whilst initially 9 months in duration, there is a possibility that this contract will be extended. 

Closing Date - 10 June 2018 

For more info see here

  • Project and Policy Assistant (full time/ maternity cover) at the European University Association (EUA)

​EUA is seeking to recruit an enthusiastic project & policy assistant for a ten-month maternity cover within its
Institutional Development Unit. The contract should start in the second half of July 2018 and a training period
is foreseen.

The role:

  • Ensure the timely execution of the Institutional Evaluation Programme’s (IEP) evaluations from the contracting phase to the closing report, including the coordination of logistical aspects of site visits by high-level experts to institutions across Europe;
  • Organise meetings and events in co-operation with local hosts;
  • Contribute to developing project proposals, implementing on-going projects and reporting on them;
  • Provide administrative support for day-to-day unit activities and projects, such as booking travels for the unit staff, managing expense claims, filing and correspondence;
  • Represent EUA at events.
  • The role entails some occasional travelling within Europe.

Deadline: 15 June 2018.

For more info see here

  • Research fellow in Gender Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences - University of Stavanger 

The University of Stavanger invites applications for a PhD position/research fellow in Gender Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The employee will be affiliated with the Network for Gender Studies.

This is a trainee position that will give promising researchers an opportunity for academic development leading to a doctoral degree. Appointment is for three years with research duties only or four years with research and 25% compulsory duties. This will be decided in the recruitment process. The position is vacant from August 1, 2018.

The research area for the position is the posthuman turn, which have impacted theory development in the field of feminist and gender studies in recent years. Central to the research area are critical perspectives on structural (in)equality in a globalised world, climate change, the welfare state, ethics and knowledge production. The position is relevant for theoretical development within adjoining fields of study, such as queer ecologies, crip theory & disability studies, decolonial studies, energy, environment and society, critical race studies, monster studies (feminist) philosophy of science, social sciences and cultural studies.

We invite applicants to outline a project proposal concerning the posthuman turn in gender studies. Potential approaches are:

  • Knowledge production: How can posthuman perspectives contribute to a potential renegotiation of epistemology and ontology in our time? Relevant cases are for example recent developments in feminist philosophy of science or studies of such negotiations in speculative fiction.
  • Identity and belonging: the posthuman turn challenges conventional structures of difference and differentiation. Relevant case studies are for example how these challenges manifest in political debates, popular culture or media landscapes.
  • The welfare state and welfare technologies: increasing use of technology in the care, health and welfare sector accentuate ethical and political challenges concerning user participation and demands for more efficient services. Relevant case studies are for example technology-mediated care practices, such as the care robot or reproductive assistance.
  • Biotechnology and ethics: what kinds of possibilities can a posthuman perspective offer to contemporary ethical debates about the sorting society and body modfication? Relevant case studies are for example egg donation and fetal diagnostics.
  • Climate change and sustainable development: in what ways are ideas and discourses about the posthuman negotiated, and in which contexts? Relevant cases are for example normcritical perspectives on climate politics, animal welfare and food politics.

Applicants are asked to supply a project proposal of max. 5 pages.

Deadline for applications: 18th of June

For more info see here

  •  Full Professor Ethics of Technology at the Philosophy and Ethics group at Eindhoven University of Technology

​The Philosophy and Ethics group at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands seeks a full professor in Ethics of Technology, with specific interests in ethical issues concerning smart systems, robotics and artificial intelligence.

Institutional Setting 

The position is embedded in the Philosophy & Ethics (P&E) group at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). The group is part of the School of Innovation Sciences, one of the two schools of the Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences (IE&IS). Research at TU/e concerns key new technologies. The university is aware of the implications these technologies can have for human lives and society, including their potential to advance or to compromise the values we cherish as a society (e.g. fairness, privacy, justice). Incorporating these values in the design and development of new technologies requires active contributions by researchers in the social sciences and humanities as well as scientists working in the engineering domains. The department of IE&IS forms the heart of the university’s commitment to the social sciences and humanities in preparing future engineers for the challenges of tomorrow.

Research at the School of Innovation Sciences is currently organized into three groups: (1) Human-Technology Interaction; (2) Philosophy & Ethics; (3) Technology, Innovation & Society. In all groups, research concerns how humans and societies bring about technological change, and how technological innovations change society and human behaviour. To investigate the many mutual interactions between humans, society and technology, research spans across fields such as cognitive and social psychology, history and philosophy of technology, and economics of innovation. The aim is to contribute both to research in the humanities and social sciences, and to the design and governance of technological innovations by all relevant stakeholders.

Research in the P&E group takes place at the interface between fundamental philosophical issues and the real-world problems that arise from the design, implementation, use and regulation of innovative technologies. Research areas to which the P&E group primarily seeks to contribute are: (applied) ethics, meta-ethics, philosophy of science and technology, epistemology, and metaphysics. Relevant areas of application include medical technology, energy systems, and robotics. Philosophical research in the group is informed by empirical work on design, use and innovation, including the social, psychological and economic mechanisms that shape these activities; hence multidisciplinary cooperation is integral to it.


The full professor is expected to do research in the broad field of ethics of technology, at the interface between fundamental philosophical issues and problems arising in the design, implementation, use and regulation of technology. Sample issues include: How can we see to it that emerging and converging technologies and infrastructures express our considered moral judgments and widely endorsed public values? How can we assess our technologies in the light of public moral values like sustainability, autonomy, safety, justice, privacy, and fairness? How are our norms and values affected by technological developments? The research by the full professor should offer original, internationally recognized ways of addressing these issues, with good opportunities for acquiring external funding and establishing multi-disciplinary collaborations.

Specifically, the full professor should have a track record of research in information ethics, or show high potential for developing research lines on ethical issues concerning smart systems, robotics and artificial intelligence. TU/e wishes to further strengthen its profile as a centre for excellent research on the information-driven society. The full professor is expected to make an active contribution to this in the context of TU/e’s Strategic Areas (Energy, Health, Smart Mobility) and research centres, such as the High-Tech Systems Centre, the Data Science Centre and the Centre for Humans and Technology.


The P&E group is responsible for a large number of courses in the TU/e Bachelor College as well as in the Graduate School. The full professor is expected to strengthen the humanities component in academic curricula at TU/e and represent the social sciences and humanities in discussions regarding TU/e’s educational profile. S/he will take the lead in developing, coordinating and teaching courses in which ethical theories and concepts are applied to technology design and implementation.


The full professor will contribute to leading the P&E research program and the P&E group. S/he will serve in group-, school-, and university-level committees and help to strengthen the department's Strategic Themes and the university’s Strategic Areas. S/he will contribute to the management of the 4TU.Centre for Ethics of Technology, which is currently coordinated by the P&E group.

The academic culture in the P&E group is characterized by collegial decision-making, and strong collaboration at the group-, school- and university level; the managerial style of the full professor should reflect this.


  • Conducts internationally leading research in ethics and technology
  • Contributes actively to strengthening TU/e’s research on the information-driven society
  • Initiates, acquires funding for, and leads (multidisciplinary) research projects
  • Strengthens TU/e’s Research Centres and Strategic Areas
  • Communicates with societal stakeholders and the general public about ethics research
  • Teaches courses in the Bachelor College and Graduate School at TU/e
  • Initiates and participates in course development
  • Plays a leading role in, and represents the humanities- and social-science component in the Bachelor College
  • Serves in management of P&E, the 4TU Centre for Ethics and Technology and IE&IS as needed

Deadline for applications: June 23, 2018

For more info see here

Thursday 03

Several job opportunities (STEM Education; Public Engagement; Innovative medicines; RRI, robotics & urban energy; RRI, public engagement, policy codesign & cocreation; Gender & Politics; Science & Technology Studies; innovation policies & knowledge transfer)

Posted by RRI Tools on 03 May 2018

  • STEM Education Programme Officer at ​European Schoolnet in Brussels

MAIN TASKS - This list is for indicative purposes only. It will be adapted to meet the priorities of the
organisation and in response to skills demonstrated by the candidate. Tasks will include:

  • Staying up to date and providing and analysing information on the latest research in the area of STEM Education (including Physics Education Research, Chemistry Education Research, Mathematics Education Research, Life sciences, etc.) for reports, proposals, presentations, etc.
  • Providing in-depth analysis on different specific countries and topics e.g. based on the TIMMS and PISA results.
  • Defining the methodology for evaluation of different studies, tools and services within STEM education projects, and carrying out the consequent analysis.
  • Contributing to define the European Schoolnet STEM education agenda and proposing potential projects to be developed (including the participation to the writing of these projects).
  • Liaising with policy makers, industry representatives and other stakeholders to present European Schoolnet’s work in the area of STEM education. 

Deadline for applications: 7th of May 2018

For more info see here

  • Two Research Associates at the Responsible Research and Innovation Hub in UCL’s Department of Science and Technology Studies 

The Responsible Research and Innovation Hub in UCL’s Department of Science and Technology Studies (STS) is participating in two Horizon 2020 projects:

SCALINGS: Investigating how cocreation instruments operate under different socio-cultural contexts, asking whether they can be generalised, transferred and scaled up, with a focus on robotics and urban energy.
SISCODE: Investigating the potential of design methodologies to help move public participation beyond consultation and into policy codesign and cocreation.
Both projects are funded by grants from the European Commission and will involve working with partners across Europe. UCL’s involvement is led by Dr Melanie Smallman and Dr Jack Stilgoe.
Duties and responsibilities:
  • To contribute to the design and implementation of a range of activities in relation to the SCALINGS/SISCODE projects
  • To set up and run other research activities relating to RRI and its stakeholders, in consultation with the Principal Investigator and project team, ensuring that they are appropriately supervised and supported. 
  • To prepare progress reports and present findings of hub activity to colleagues for review purposes and to organise project meetings
  • Attending project meetings as needed, which might involve some European Travel and overnight stays
  • To contribute to drafting and submitting papers to appropriate peer reviewed journals.
  • To undertake a limited amount of teaching and training in relation to RRI
  • Providing support for the smooth running of the RRI Hub, including events, website and the Hub’s database of contacts.

Closing Date: 21 May 2018

For more info see here

  • Researcher Engagement Coordinator at the Wellcome Genome Campus Connecting Science,  Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK

A brand new and exciting opportunity has arisen to join our dynamic Public Engagement team dedicated to inspiring new thinking, sparking conversation and supporting learning around genomic science and its applications.

You will lead the shaping and delivering of our growing programme of training and support activity across our Campus which plays home to the world-leading Wellcome Sanger Institute and EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute. You will also encompass our work to promote and embed a culture of engaged and responsible research and innovation (RRI) across our campus. In particular relevance to this, you will support our work within NUCLEUS - a European Commission supported project exploring practical implementation of RRI policies in research organisations, in Europe and beyond.

You will work closely with the wider public engagement team. There will also be strong cross working with companion teams across the Campus, whose roles cover training, research support, policy and communications.

This is a challenging and rewarding role, being at the heart of an energetic and visionary research campus. There will be plenty of scope for personal and professional development within the role.

You will have a first degree in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) or a field related to public engagement, impact or policy, and have a consistent track record of stakeholder and/or public engagement activities. Experience of working within busy research communities on projects of change would be valuable, as would implementation of support structures or interventions in researcher training and development.

Closing Date: 18th May 2018 

For more info see here

  • Scientific Project Officer at the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking in Brussels

The Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (IMI2 JU) is working to improve health by speeding up the development of, and patient access to, innovative medicines, particularly in areas where there is an unmet medical or social need. It does this by facilitating collaboration between the key players involved in healthcare research, including universities, the pharmaceutical and other industries, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), patient organisations, and medicines regulators. IMI2 JU is a partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry, represented by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

The specific goal of IMI2 JU is to develop next generation vaccines, medicines and treatments, such as new antibiotics. It will build on the successes and lessons learnt under IMI's first phase. It brings together companies, universities, public laboratories, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), patient groups and regulators in collaborative projects to pave the way for breakthrough vaccines, medicines and treatments to tackle Europe’s growing health challenges, and secure the future international competitiveness of Europe’s pharmaceutical industry.

The Scientific Project Officer will be assigned duties and responsibilities within the scientific operations team related to the planning, management and implementation of research and development activities and the follow-up of the entire cycle of projects. The Scientific Project Officer will be in particular responsible for:

  • Contributing to the planning, management and monitoring of calls for proposals/tenders, the evaluation processes, the grant preparation stage and the monitoring of launched projects;
  • Ensuring adequate follow-up of issues related to project implementation, contractual obligations and the management of external expertise;
  • The management of the technical aspects of contracts linked to the preparation and implementation of the projects, or to collaborate during the preparation of such contracts;
  • The co-ordination and networking aspects of IMI2 JU projects;
  • Providing statistical input for IMI2 JU papers, communications or other documents concerning the IMI2 JU objectives and performance measurement;
  • Promoting awareness of evaluation needs and benefits within IMI2 JU;
  • Participating in the implementation of IMI2 JU scientific priorities;
  • Reporting on evaluation activities of IMI2 JU;
  • Collaborating in the activities of the scientific team.

Applications must be submitted by 21 May 2018

For more info see here

  • Lecturer - Gender and Politics at the University of Edinburgh - College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: Politics and International Relations

You will further the School’s reputation in Politics and International Relations, with a specialism in Gender and Politics from any subfield of gender politics, but especially in public policy, international development, comparative politics, environment, or security.

You must demonstrate experience, achievement and outstanding potential reflected in a growing personal teaching, and supervisory portfolio.  It is essential that you present a research profile, in both experience to date and in future potential, which is at the forefront of your area of activity. You will be expected to play a full part in the collegial life of the Subject Group and the School. 

​This full time (35 hours per week), open ended position is available from 1 August 2018.  Consideration may be given to this post being part time, however the part time nature of the post must not be less than 0.8fte (28 hours per week).

Closing date: 22nd May 2018

For more info see here

  • Associate Professor in Science & Technology Studies at the School of Sociology and Social Policy of the University of Nottingham

The School of Sociology and Social Policy (SSP) is a vibrant, diverse and exciting centre for social science teaching and research. We are a multidisciplinary unit covering criminology, public policy, social policy, social work and sociology. Cutting across these disciplinary boundaries are two shared values: the promotion of global and social justice and a desire in our teaching and research to ‘make a difference’.

We are looking for an enthusiastic individual to make a significant leadership contribution to research and teaching in science and technology studies (STS) and sociology in the School of Sociology and Social Policy.

The role holder will be a member of the School’s Institute for Science and Society (ISS) and have a leading role in grant capture, interdisciplinary/collaborative research with impact, mentoring of early career staff and PhD students, and sociology teaching. To work in a collaborative, interdisciplinary fashion and enhance one of our established strengths in STS (i.e. environment, energy and sustainability; health and illness) or help build one of our emerging clusters (e.g. around big data and digital sociology).

Taking responsibility for maintaining high standards of teaching, and contribute generally to the development of teaching, teaching methods and assessment in sociology. The person appointed will also be expected to play an active part in the management of the School, for example by taking on a significant administrative role in relation to research and/or teaching.

We welcome applications from candidates with extensive research and teaching experience in a relevant area. This is a full-time job available from 1 September 2018 on a permanent basis. Job share arrangements may be considered for this post.

Closing Date: Friday 25 May 2018

For more info see here

  • Postdoc position at the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy (CFA) at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University 

Research at CFA is broadly concerned with research -, innovation -, and higher education policy with emphasis on empirical studies. The current research portfolio at CFA includes projects on innovation policy and the relation between innovation and productivity, quality in research and higher education, research funding, research integrity, gender equality in science, and responsible research and innovation (RRI).

In addition to research activities, CFA contributes to broader knowledge sharing and capacity building related to research -, innovation -, and higher education policy by providing research-based advice to public authorities. CFA performs commissioned evaluations, analyses and impact studies at Danish, Nordic, and European level, thus contributing to evidence-based policy making.

Job description - The successful applicant will be contributing to a three-year research project that seeks to analyse the role of regions and urban areas in fostering firm productivity growth, with focus on Business Region Aarhus. This can include the roles of clustering and global value chains, of innovation and innovative competences, and of mobility and knowledge transfer.

Qualifications - Applicants should hold (or be close to completing) a PhD in a social science discipline such as economics or management, or in an interdisciplinary research field related to science, technology and innovation, or have equivalent academic qualifications. Applicants should demonstrate extensive experience with empirical research, possess strong skills in quantitative methods, and have an excellent command of spoken and written English. Applicants should also preferably have experience within the analysis of innovation and productivity growth.

Deadline for applications: 11.06.2018 

For more info see here

Leave a comment

Comments on the blog are moderated before they appear on the site. Comment Policy


Follow us: