The EU funded project CIMULACT has engaged more than 1,000 citizens from 30 European countries to uncover the needs of the citizens and in a highly participatory process transform these into recommendations for future R&I agendas.

A report on the RRI-related workshops and sessions during the Ecsite Annual Conference 2016.

Now that the call for proposals for the next Ecsite Annual Conference 2017 just opened we think it is the right moment to sit down and reflect on the past Ecsite Conference 2016 in Graz and what exactly we learned from it.

Science centres, museums and other science engagement organisations are finding themselves in the middle of the transformation of the science&society relationship. With the concept of RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), actively promoted by the European Commission, the ongoing process of aligning research and innovation with societal needs and expectations is one of the most important science policy trends in EU funding scheme Horizon 2020. Does it have any implications on the work of science engagement organisation? What kind of role are they ready to take up in this transformation? These and many other questions were the main themes of several sessions and workshops during the Ecsite Annual Conference 2016 in Graz, Austria. The conference offered a great platform to discuss and share concrete experiences with RRI that are relevant specifically for science engagement organisations.

Democracy is changing, and people are demanding more input into the things that affect their daily lives. Public engagement in RRI can help fill this demand but only if it goes beyond encouraging data collection to facilitating people’s ability to influence science. So said Lars Klüver, who has been involved with public engagement and technology assessment since the 1980s and is currently director of the Danish Board of Technology Foundation and coordinator for Engage 2020, CIMULACT and HBP Citizen Consultations. Klüver recently spoke at the RRI Tools’ second Train the Trainers workshop, which took place at CosmoCaixa Barcelona (July 4–6, 2016).

Let’s get scientific about RRI. Let us put into question if there is scientific evidence about the association between ‘responsible research’ (as defined by the 6 pillars) and social impact of research. The field of ‘science of science’ may have some answers to this. This discipline seeks scientific evidence on how science works to help policy makers optimise societal impact of research. The methods usually adopted are combinations of quality research case studies, questionnaires, bibliometrics, data-mining and narrative review. Now, the question I propose in this post is whether there is scientific evidence that investing in responsible research will deliver more societal impacts.

​

Research agendas for health and biomedical research are usually determined by the priorities of researchers, academia and sponsors. But do these agendas really match the demands in society and the needs of the users of the research results? These users - patients, taxpaying citizens, but also caregivers, health professionals, governmental reimbursement agencies, private insurers - are seldom involved in setting research agendas. Thus, the specific knowledge and expertise of these groups is undervalued and underused.

The EU funded project CIMULACT has engaged more than 1,000 citizens from 30 European countries to uncover the needs of the citizens and in a highly participatory process transform these into recommendations for future R&I agendas.

A report on the RRI-related workshops and sessions during the Ecsite Annual Conference 2016.

Now that the call for proposals for the next Ecsite Annual Conference 2017 just opened we think it is the right moment to sit down and reflect on the past Ecsite Conference 2016 in Graz and what exactly we learned from it.

Science centres, museums and other science engagement organisations are finding themselves in the middle of the transformation of the science&society relationship. With the concept of RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), actively promoted by the European Commission, the ongoing process of aligning research and innovation with societal needs and expectations is one of the most important science policy trends in EU funding scheme Horizon 2020. Does it have any implications on the work of science engagement organisation? What kind of role are they ready to take up in this transformation? These and many other questions were the main themes of several sessions and workshops during the Ecsite Annual Conference 2016 in Graz, Austria. The conference offered a great platform to discuss and share concrete experiences with RRI that are relevant specifically for science engagement organisations.

Democracy is changing, and people are demanding more input into the things that affect their daily lives. Public engagement in RRI can help fill this demand but only if it goes beyond encouraging data collection to facilitating people’s ability to influence science. So said Lars Klüver, who has been involved with public engagement and technology assessment since the 1980s and is currently director of the Danish Board of Technology Foundation and coordinator for Engage 2020, CIMULACT and HBP Citizen Consultations. Klüver recently spoke at the RRI Tools’ second Train the Trainers workshop, which took place at CosmoCaixa Barcelona (July 4–6, 2016).

Let’s get scientific about RRI. Let us put into question if there is scientific evidence about the association between ‘responsible research’ (as defined by the 6 pillars) and social impact of research. The field of ‘science of science’ may have some answers to this. This discipline seeks scientific evidence on how science works to help policy makers optimise societal impact of research. The methods usually adopted are combinations of quality research case studies, questionnaires, bibliometrics, data-mining and narrative review. Now, the question I propose in this post is whether there is scientific evidence that investing in responsible research will deliver more societal impacts.

​

Research agendas for health and biomedical research are usually determined by the priorities of researchers, academia and sponsors. But do these agendas really match the demands in society and the needs of the users of the research results? These users - patients, taxpaying citizens, but also caregivers, health professionals, governmental reimbursement agencies, private insurers - are seldom involved in setting research agendas. Thus, the specific knowledge and expertise of these groups is undervalued and underused.