Wednesday 14

RRI Tools featured as a success experience in the upcoming Horizon 2020 EU Green Deal call

Posted by RRI Tools (Eva Zuazua Schücker) on 14 Oct 2020

European Green Deal Call: €1 billion investment to boost the green and digital transition

The European Commission is launching a €1 billion call for research and innovation projects that respond to the climate crisis and help protect Europe's unique ecosystems and biodiversity. The Horizon 2020-funded European Green Deal Call, which is already open for registration, will spur Europe's recovery from the coronavirus crisis by turning green challenges into innovation opportunities.

Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth said: 

“The €1 billion European Green Deal call is the last and biggest call under Horizon 2020. With innovation at its heart, this investment will accelerate a just and sustainable transition to a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. As we do not want anyone left behind in this systemic transformation, we call for specific actions to engage with citizens in novel ways and improve societal relevance and impact.”

This Green Deal Call differs in important aspects from previous Horizon 2020 calls. Given the urgency of the challenges it addresses, it aims for clear, discernible results in the short to medium-term, but with a perspective of long-term change. There are fewer, but more targeted, larger and visible actions, with a focus on rapid scalability, dissemination and uptake.

The projects funded under this call are expected to deliver results with tangible benefits in ten areas:

Eight thematic areas reflecting the key work streams of the European Green Deal:

  1. Increasing climate ambition
  2. Clean, affordable and secure energy
  3. Industry for a clean and circular economy
  4. Energy and resource efficient buildings
  5. Sustainable and smart mobility
  6. Farm to fork
  7. Biodiversity and ecosystems
  8. Zero-pollution, toxic-free environments

And two horizontal areas - strengthening knowledge (9) and empowering citizens (10), which offer a longer-term perspective in achieving the transformations set out in the European Green Deal.

The RRI Tools platform has been featured in the EU Green Deal call (Area 10. Empowering citizens for the transition towards a climate neutral, sustainable EU) as a success experience to build on, together with other fellow projects such as Scientix, EU-Citizen.Science, TeRRIFICA and more.

The €1 billion investment will continue building Europe's knowledge systems and infrastructures. The call includes opportunities for international cooperation in addressing the needs of less-developed nations, particularly in Africa, in the context of the Paris Agreement as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The deadline for submissions is 26 January 2021, with selected projects expected to start in autumn 2021.

For more information:

Thursday 21

Virtual Dialogue Days | Democratizing Innovation - Fostering collaboration among the public sector, industry, academia & civil society

Posted by Frederik Langkjær & Matilde Trevisani, RiConfigure project on 21 May 2020



Quadruple Helix (QH) innovation, the collaboration of actors from public sector, industry, academia and civil society, is a
concept to address complex problems and to innovate for the benefits of all involved. By emphasizing collaboration
across sectors and the active involvement of civil society, QH links to models such as Open Innovation 2.0 and Mode3. The EU project RiConfigure has engaged with a number of QH cases across Europe and Colombia and established first-hand knowledge how these work in practice. The current COVID-19 crisis creates new challenges for society while, at the same time, 'old' problems, such as the climate crisis, are not disappearing. Most of the ways addressing wicked problems are currently top-down and expert based. We thus aim to foster collaborative- and more democratic modes of innovation.

About the dialogue days

The RiConfigure 'dialogue days' are an open online process that brings together policy makers, practitioners and researchers working on and with QH innovation. Knowledge and experience of participants from innovation policy and praxis are linked with findings from an empirical analysis of European and Colombian cases of Quadruple Helix collaborations. The analyzed cases are innovation projects located in fields such as energy production, climate change adaption, connected mobility and smart labor. Together we will discuss what it needs for these type of innovation projects to thrive - particularly in these challenging times. Special emphasis will be given to learnings from COVID-19 challenges to innovation collaborations, both as impacts on and potential of innovation in corona times.

This virtual event is organized through the online platform 'Slack' that allows participants to join discussions whenever they are available. There will be a main channel where, along the dialogue days, videos and other input, stemming from the analysis of RiConfigure, will be uploaded. Sub-channels allow specific discussions as well as the co-creation of output e.g., policy briefs or best practice collection. In each channel, a moderator will stimulate discussions and summarize key learnings. Participants may thus contribute to the whole five-day process, or, join the discussions on selective days/times. The platform will be designed easy-accessible so no specific technical skills are needed to join and contribute. 

What to expect

  • Explore and learn from good practice examples for collaborative innovation 
  • Discuss tools & methods for involving civil society in innovation
  • Connect and develop new ideas of practitioners and policy makers
  • Jointly lay ground for a policy brief, an innovation training program and practice-oriented handbooks for collaborative innovation targeted for practitioners and policy makers


  • Date: 06th -10th July 2020
  • Time: Flexible options to contribute 24h/day across the five days | 1,5h live discussions at each day
  • Who: Persons involved in innovation practice and policy
  • Organizer: EU project RiConfigure | Institute for Advanced Studies (Austria) & Fondazione Adriano Olivetti (Italy) 
  • Contact: | please register via E-Mail until June 26th 2020 


*A detailed agenda for the dialogue days will be available soon.

Thursday 19

RRI Tools & LIV_IN have joined forces to improve and expand contents of the RRI Toolkit

Posted by Eva Zuazua Schücker - RRI Tools on 19 Mar 2020

The LIVING INNOVATION project brings together 14 partners from all over Europe, including major industry leaders, civil society and research organizations to co-develop more responsible, inclusive and sustainable approaches to innovation in the ICT sector. The project is building capacity and instruments to support the integration of responsible innovation in industrial contexts. The ultimate goal is to shift attitudes towards responsible innovation from risk to opportunity, across sectors and target groups.

LIV_IN is organizing co-creation workshops with lead users and citizens, who are jointly working on solutions that meet user needs and leverage collective creativity to tackle societal challenges, in the areas of smart homes and smart health, and that may uncover new business opportunities. The project has also created a virtual community platform meant to serve as an interactive space for discussion, knowledge exchange and collaboration, open to experts and practitioners in digitization and responsibility.

RRI Tools and LIV_IN have joined forces to enrich and improve contents of the RRI Toolkit focusing on industry needs, and to give higher visibility to LIV_IN and its activities among the R&I community.

Thanks to this collaboration we are adapting those sections of the RRI Tools Platform specifically devoted to industry and business to make them more useful and attractive for this sector, and are developing new how-to application guidelines, based in key learnings from the LIV_IN project. These guidelines are meant to provide practical guidance on how to address common challenges faced by industry and corporates when trying to put responsible innovation into practice. We will be presenting some of these improvements and new developments in the coming weeks and months --> Stay tuned!!

Our partnership with LIV_IN has also served to expand contents of the RRI Toolkit. Many new resources of interest for the industry sector have been uploaded into our resource database in these last months.

Resources collected include a variety of tools and methods for different purposes: 

  • Technology assessment, risk analysis, foresight, future thinking, ethics, AI ethics, etc
  • Co-creation, co-design, creativity techniques, design thinking, design for all, user-driven innovation, , multi- and transdisciplinarity, open innovation, crowdsourcing, citizen science, patient-driven innovation, inclusive innovation, gendered innovation, etc.
  • Sustainable development, circular economy, smart specialisation, R&I innovation strategies, R&I governance, tech governance, accountability, etc.

We mainly focused on R&I fields related to the scope of LIV_IN project such as: Health and wellbeing, ICT, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, etc. But at the same time, we also tried to compile resources related to other industry related fields such as: food and agriculture, energy, urban development, transport and mobility, etc.

Resources come in a wide range of formats: reports, books, opinion pieces, academic articles, videos, presentations, guidelines, case studies, dedicated portals, catalogues, certification standards, training materials, games, communication tools, etc.

If you want to access to whole collection --> follow the link

Wednesday 26

Including RRI in the development and implementation of Horizon Europe

Posted by E.-M. Forsberg, A. Gerber and S. G. Carson on 26 Feb 2020

** This post was last updated in March 9th **

The Coronavirus disease occured in a serious number of cases in Italy. The Italian government has ordered the closing of schools and universities as well as the cancellation of all cultural events and conferences until 3 April 2020. The Fit4RRI project decided to postpone its Final Summit, until 29-30 April 2020 (if possible), either in presence or virtually. The RRI Forethinkers workshop has therefore also been postponed and the promoters will decide their nexts steps in the coming days


Now is a crucial time for joining forces to strengthen the visibility of RRI in Horizon Europe! 

We therefore invite key RRI proponents, from key European RRI projects, and a range of ERA member states, to meet for a workshop (Rome, 20-21 March 2020) where the aim is to agree on, and coordinate, actions intended to help advance RRI in Horizon Europe. The workshop is organised with support from the Research Council of Norway and in collaboration with the European New HoRRIzon project, and with the kind support of the Fit4RRI organisers and the Sapienza Università di Roma which has offered to host the workshop at their premises, in connection with the Fit4RRI Summit. You can download the invitation to the workshop and the draft agenda from here (*)

Hereby we are sharing a position paper we intend to send to relevant shadow committee representatives for Horizon Europe, as well as other stakeholders that might be important for supporting the RRI agenda in Horizon Europe. Feel free to reuse parts of the document (or the whole!) for your own lobbying purposes.



Including RRI in the development and implementation of Horizon Europe 

E.-M. Forsberg, A. Gerber and S. G. Carson (February 2020)


Why RRI in Horizon Europe?
The European Union has an ambition to be a global leader in sustainable and value-driven research and innovation. The European Union, including the upcoming framework programme Horizon Europe, builds upon the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and has committed to the European Green Deal, where ‘the full range of instruments available under the Horizon Europe programme will support the research and innovation efforts needed’. It is stated that ‘Conventional approaches will not be sufficient. Emphasising experimentation, and working across sectors and disciplines, the EU’s research and innovation agenda will take the systemic approach needed to achieve the aims of the Green Deal. The Horizon Europe programme will also involve local communities in working towards a more sustainable future, in initiatives that seek to combine societal pull and technology push’. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is an approach that can support this agenda. 
RRI refers to an approach rolled out in Framework Programmes 7 & 8 emphasising the on-going process of aligning research and innovation to societal values, needs and expectations . RRI guides researchers/innovators and research/innovation conducting and funding organisations in anticipating the implications of their work, including citizens and stakeholders upstream, and reflecting and responding on society’s values and concerns. In this way, co-design and co-responsibility for the outcomes of the research and innovation can be facilitated, increasing societal uptake and acceptability of research and innovation. The last decade of the RRI agenda also provides important resources for operationalizing the Open Science agenda in its broad sense, beyond Open Access and Open Data, and the co-creation and citizen science agendas. Experiences from the concluded and ongoing RRI projects (in total 1971 were tagged as RRI projects by January 2019) should thus inform research and innovation investments as they will be outlined in the first Strategic Plan for Horizon Europe, including the sub-chapters on more specific actions.
RRI can 
  • make research and innovation more societally legitimate, when it is developed in line with societal values
  • help research and innovation be an instrument for meeting the sustainability goals
  • in this way ensure broader societal support for research and innovation investments that are necessary to keep Europe as a competitive region globally 
Making RRI more visible in Horizon Europe – practical measures
RRI is included in Horizon Europe as operational objective 2 (c) (article 2 of the Specific programme implementing Horizon Europe: promoting responsible research and innovation, taking into account the precautionary principles. Recital 26 of the regulation for Horizon Europe states: ‘With the aim of deepening the relationship between science and society and maximising benefits of their interactions, the Programme should actively and systematically engage and involve citizens and civil society organisations in co-designing and co-creating responsible research and innovation agendas and contents, promoting science education, making scientific knowledge publicly accessible, and facilitating participation by citizens and civil society organisations in its activities. It should do so across the Programme and through dedicated activities in the part 'Strengthening the European Research Area'. The document Orientations towards the first Strategic Plan for Horizon Europe also gives a mandate for RRI: ‘Engaging and involving citizens, civil society organisations and end-users in co-design and co-creation processes and promoting responsible research and innovation will improve trust between science and society, and the uptake of scientific evidence-based public policies and innovative solutions.’ These mandates must be followed up with concrete actions, in essence; RRI should be specifically outlined as a requirement of research and innovation in each programme line of Horizon Europe and should be funded as a research and innovation action on its own terms in Reforming and Enhancing the European R&I system.
This means:
  • Drafting committees of each programme line should at an early point consider what RRI measures are appropriate for their respective programmes. The level of integration of RRI aspects should be proportional to the potential societal implications of the research and innovation funded in the lines. RRI should be included as assessment criteria and KPIs in (i) the agenda-setting for the Work Programmes; (ii) the definition of calls and guidance for applicants; (iii) the review process and grant agreements; (iv) the monitoring processes and (v) impact evaluation.
  • Budgets must be devoted to RRI actions in projects funded under each programme line. 
  • In this work, the drafting committees should consider seeking the support of RRI experts, who can (before a European network is formed) be found among the major Horizon 2020 RRI projects. In the running of Horizon Europe such a support system should be organised as a permanent structure. 
  • It must be clear that citizen science, open science and co-creation are aspects of RRI, but responsibility in research and innovation also includes being anticipatory, inclusive, reflexive and responsive, and includes considerations of ethics, fairness (social, gender, etc.) and sustainability. Open science, citizen science and co-creation agendas should be considered in this broader perspective and reference to RRI should be made.
  • In order to maintain the investment in RRI competence from Horizon 2020, to be used for high quality RRI engagement in Horizon Europe, a dedicated space (with an appropriate budget) for RRI competence building and further research should be allocated to Reforming and Enhancing the European R&I system, together with citizen science and open science. 
  • A hub on RRI should be funded by the EC in order to ensure quality in the mainstreaming of RRI, co-creation, public engagement and citizen science in the whole framework programme. This hub should build on and further cultivate the RRI knowledge base. It should advise, train, consult, assess and provide quality control, and be a resource for those who include RRI related activities in Horizon Europe programmes and projects. It should also provide experts for the assessment of these aspects of research and innovation proposals and project activities, and for relevant committees and boards.
  • There should be RRI NCPs from each Member State, which should guide and assess the operationalisation of RRI in Horizon Europe, to allow for learning processes at programme and project levels. 
These recommendations build on evidence and experiences from previous projects on RRI and public engagement, and on extended dialogues with RRI experts, funders and policy makers. 
You can download a pdf version of the position paper from here
(*) The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) occured in a serious number of cases in Italy. The Italian government has ordered the closing of schools and universities as well as the cancellation of all cultural events and conferences until 3 April 2020. The Fit4RRI project decided to postpone its Final Summit, until 29-30 April 2020 (if possible), either in presence or virtually. The RRI Forethinkers workshop has therefore also been postponed and the promoters will decide their nexts steps in the coming days

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

Leave a comment

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


Follow us: