Arie Rip, Chair EAG
An extended overview of the topics proposed by the EAG for the SWAFS
Work Programme 2016-2017.
Based on the discussions in the third and fourth meetings, and extended by Arie Rip
Final version, 16 March 2015
While our Report of the fourth meeting already contained an overview of the eight topics that were
eventually selected, the text in the table and in the notes from our discussions were in the reporting
mode, and sometimes very brief. Thus, to be more helpful to Commission Services when they write
the draft Working Programmme 2016-2017, I have created a separate overview document, including
extensions when opportune. Members of the EAG received this overview document and were in
general agreement. In the present final version,a few minor improvements of the text have been
made. It is now sent by the Chair to the Commission Services (Unit B7).
=====
The numbering of the eight topics in the Report of our fourth meeting is used in this overview
document, so the first four topics are about embedding RRI, and the subsequent four topics are
about SWAFS.
=====
General:
The topics oriented toward embedding RRI are about institutional change and positioned as
Collaborative and Support Actions. The first three are directed to what is happening in (and at the
level of) Member States and sectors, such as industry and services. That is particularly important
because RRI needs new constellations of actors and be embedded in people and institutions, thus
becoming a working reality somewhat independent of the “nudging” that can be done by the
European Commission.
In general, it is important to position RRI as opening up opportunities rather than introducing “red
line” prescriptions.Discussions in the fourth meeting included the possibility of identifying demo
projects (for example, about quadruple helix approaches1), and to recognize the importance of
“consortium engineering” by developing hubs with a critical mass, as well as capacity building
generally (including annual meetings/conferences). While positioned as CSA, there could be a
research component in the four topics. One possibility is to study the question of what the barriers to
change are.
All these considerations can (should?) be included at relevant places in the text of the Call.
The SWAFS topics are positioned as RIAs, but have an action-orientation as well in the sense that
they often include evaluation of what is happening and reflect on what might be done. They are
based on a double diagnosis: First, of the knowledge base: what do we know already and what do we
need to know more about? And second, what appear to be important developments that deserve to
be studied and analysed?
1
See Annex 1
1
Topic 1: Changing institutions and actors - new constellations (CIANC)
In the 2009 Report of the MASIS Expert Group, Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Emerging
Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues, the overall diagnosis is one of a patchwork of ongoing partial and
contested transformations. One major trend is the increasing re-contextualisation of institutions and
practices of science in society. “Other trends include the growing interest in strategic research and
accompanying institutional changes, greater citizen involvement and science becoming more
reflexive about its own role and impacts. Frictions and tensions occur, partly because of these trends.
(…) This patchwork of transformations and tensions does not result in a clear picture of an ‘adequate
place of science in society. In fact, the open debate about the place of science in society should
continue, and experiments to address tensions and other challenges should be welcomed.” (p. 4) The
Report then calls for ‘dynamic governance’, supporting ongoing dynamics rather than containing
them.
The Report becomes more specific in its diagnosis and possible approaches in its later chapters. A
SWAFSWork Programme has to be specific as well, even if that implies being selective. The first three
topics capture the spirit of ‘dynamic governance’ in their format, being Collaborative and Support
Actions, and in their substance, because of their focus on ongoing changes in institutions, actors and
activities.
Key institutions like universities and funding agencies are changing, in general and occasionally with
respect to RRI issues. In calls for a ‘civic university’ (John Goddard) one can see RRI issues at play,
without having them labeled as such. Clearly, it is important to support such changes when they help
articulate good practices. At the same time, Member States are reconsidering their science,
technology and innovation policy (also because of the challenge how to address Grand Challenges, cf.
Stefan Kuhlmann and Arie Rip’s analysis of the need for new constellations of actors). And new actors
such as regions (and cities) and NGOs of various kinds are becoming important, andnew forms of
governance are emerging, partly bottom-up. One could also refer to the model of a “quadruple
helix”, extending the “triple helix” of science, industry and government with a fourth strand, the
public sphere.At the same time, there is the move to smart specialization, of regions and countries,
but also of sectors (as for example in the Dutch Top Sector Innovation Policy2).
There are a number of implications (see also Topics 2 and 3), but Topic 1 focuses on the importance
of new constellations of actors, already visible in public-private partnerships and open science and
open innovation, but now becoming broader and more heterogeneous.This is both about new
constellations of existing actors (as in public-private interactions) and new or modified constellations
because of new actors. The projects would be initiated by consortia of relevant existing and new
actors, articulating evolving practices against the overall backdrop of transformations and tensions
(cf. above). There is a research aspect as well, in mapping and analyzing what is happening, and
perhaps placing it in larger frameworks – clearly, more is happening than neo-liberal market-oriented
moves. The research and reflection is an essential complement to the interactions between the
various relevant organizations and actors, in terms of exchanges about good practices and exploring
new collaborations.
A project proposal would require attention to RRI issues, but not be limited to it. RRI is part of larger
issues and developments, and should always be positioned as such. Given the variety of interests and
possible tensions, a somewhat independent actor like a charitable foundation might lead the project.
Some of these foundations have actually already shown an interest in RRI.
2
http://www.government.nl/issues/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/investing-in-top-sectors
2
The Rome Declaration (November 20143), even ifdoes not address overall changes and focuses on
traditional science organizations, can be useful as one of the starting points for building proposals for
this topic. The Rome Declaration calls on public and private Research and Innovation Performing
Organisations to implement institutional changes that foster RRI by:
 Reviewing their own procedures and practices in order to identify possible RRI barriers and
opportunities at organisation level;
 Creating experimental spaces to engage civil society actors in the research process as sources
of knowledge and partners in innovation;
 Developing and implementing strategies and guidelines for the acknowledgment and
promotion of RRI;
 Adapting curricula and developing trainings to foster awareness, know-how, expertise and
competence of RRI;
 Including RRI criteria in the evaluation and assessment of research staff.
3
http://www.sis-rri-conference.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/RomeDeclaration_Final.pdf
3
Topic 2: Interactions in the new science in society (INSIS)
This topic starts with the same diagnosis of ongoing changes as laid out in the beginning of Topic 1,
but focuses on the nature of new interactions and their outcomes. Existing research performing and
research funding institutions become more “porous”, accepting inputs from what used to be seen as
outsiders (extended peer review in funding agencies is an early example). There is a move towards
“co-creation” (co-construction in policy and design phases, as well as actual co-production of
research organization and performance). Overall, at the macro-level, so-called quadruple helix
formations might be emerging. One can envisage elements of RRI to be an integral part of these
developments; the RRI call to science organizations to be responsive is predicated on the potential of
these developments and wants to push them further. All this may be inspired by the European
Union’s interest in RRI, but does not depend on European Union measures. It is about governance,
not government.
The present title plays on possible groupings of key terms: the relations between science in society
are changing, so there will be new interactions in (science in society). But science, and knowledge
production more generally, are changing as well, partly because its embedding in society is changing.
Thus, we have (new science) in society. There is scholarly literature and commentary offering
analysis, and there are lots of experiments and experiences. From the perspective of RRI, these are
desirable developments, so it is important to map what is happening, identify the drivers and the
barriers, and how to diagnosis the interest and value. While it is important to exchange and learn
about practices-in-their-context, it is too early to try and identify best practices. What is ‘best’
depends on context, as well as on possible longer term developments.
A project proposal on this topic should definitely consider co-creation experiences and experiments
(with some of them being conflictual and/or leading to controversies; the co-construction of field
tests of genetically modified vines in the Alsace is instructive, even while there are no easy recipes). It
might well consider further issues, in particular of an epistemological nature, as different
competencies and epistemic authority are involved. There is a real possibility to include designing
experiments and trying them out, informed by the research component mentioned above (mapping,
drivers and barriers).
4
Topic 3: Engaging industry – champions for RRI in industrial sectors (CRIS)
While some aspects of engaging industry are part of Topics 1 and 2 already, here industry will be
upfront, and might take a leading role (but see below, a structural problem). The experience with
nanoscience and nanotechnologies is instructive in the sense that that there, industry was somewhat
pro-active and interactions were more constructive overall than with GMOs. Now that other domains
are drawing public attention as well (e.g. synthetic biology and geo-engineering), it is time to take
stock, drawing also on existing analyses.
There are already relevant activities, building on RRI “champions” in industrial sectors. Earlier and
present activities initiated and carried by industry, can be a starting point, for example the early
example of the Responsible Care Programme of the chemical industry, and various attempts at codes
of conduct for nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Both of these examples are quite well-known, as
are various initiatives referring to sustainability, but one should not overlook smaller and less visible
examples. Then there are broad-brush initiatives, as from EIRMA,the European Industrial Research
Management Association,4 which wants to pay attention to RRI and make it part of their Vision 2050.
Thus, there is a promise, but there is also a structural problem. There are the activities from industry,
or participated in by industry, which speak to RRI. This goes further than Corporate Social
Responsibility, because it is linked to technological innovations. There are various motives and
drivers in these developments, including the importance of having/keeping a social licence to
operate. As there are “good firms” and “cowboy firms” in general, the same occurs for research and
innovation. This is the promising part.
Because of the variety of values and societal convictions, there will be no consensus about who/what
is going to count as ‘responsible’. This constitutes a structural problem, not only because of essential
contestations in our societies, but also because ‘responsible’ isnot well specified, and can be used as
a “feel good” term (similar to terms like ‘sustainability’).
An illustrative example is the Round Table on Responsible Soy, which offers certification of soy
production practices to those firms who apply and satisfy the criteria.5 Members of the Round Table
are Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill, Nidera, BP, Shell (which are all interested parties), but also
Wereldnatuurfonds and Solidaridad. One could applaud this as an action of “good firms”, but we are
aware that Monsanto’s record is not without blemishes. Critical societal groups have looked into the
criteria for certification, and labeled them, at least in part, as “greenwash”. And they have been
alerting various actors (organisations) to what they see as problematic with the certification.6
Clearly, there is a structural problem in the notions of responsibility and being responsible, and the
problem is compounded by the narrative of ‘inclusion’. The structural problem can bebackgrounded
sometimes, but not when industry is to be engaged, and definitely not if industry is to play a leading
4http://www.eirma.org/
Compare the remark on their website under Events: 04.03.2015: Responsible Innovation Task Force Consultation
Meeting. “Society needs innovation, but innovation implies change, and carries potential risks as well as expected benefits.”
5For this example, I draw on Hanssen and De Vriend 2011, who did an interesting study (in Dutch) on the role of social media around
biotechnology.
6 The Round Table appears to be active and relatively successful (http://www.responsiblesoy.org/en/ ). “Responsible Soy” appears to have
become a commonly used term, even if it stretches the meaning of ‘responsible’. The critical assessments continue as well, e.g.
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/RTRS_files/RTRS%20backgrounder%20v2.pdf . The dynamics involved are brought out in a quote on
http://www.isealalliance.org/tag/round-table-for-responsible-soy-rtrs : “Driven by a growing private sector preference to use standards to
build sustainability and economic security into supply chains, the demand for certified products is outstripping supply in many sectors. This
supply gap is opening new challenges for a standards movement whose prior concerns were mainly on building demand. The closing
session of the ISEAL Conference 2012 brought together business, NGOs and standards-setters to look at the innovations needed to reach
the next wave of producers.” The ISEAL Conference is providing a space for interactions (cf. the point made later in the main text), and such
a space is a site where RRI issues can be articulated and implemented.
5
role. This is not to say that one should bow for all critical societal groups, but that a topic about
Engaging Industry should be carefully positioned in the Call.
Two considerations are important. First, the narrative of ‘inclusion’, also implicitly in the way terms
like ‘inclusive’ are used (also in our own EAG’s strategic vision), suggests that more actors and more
inputs should be included in the work of traditional organizations. These organizations might feel
beleaguered, and be reluctant. Proposals how to do better often start with suggestions on how to
create more access for societal actors to the ‘beleaguered’ organizations – which reinforces the
storyline.
In the Call for this topic, the tables should be turned, and the starting point should be initiatives from
industry (firms, consortia, industry organizations). That is why the topic mentions “champions for RRI
in industrial sectors”. The successful “Responsible Care Program” of the chemical industry would be
an early example.
Second, to reduce the effect of mutual suspicions about intentions, the project should create (and
itself be) a space guided by actors (or a combination of actors) who would themselves be above the
struggles of suspicion and the deadlocks these create. The European Foundation Centre, an
organization of foundations and philanthropic organizations, could play such a role, given its recent
Statement on Responsible Research and Innovation.7 Some of its members already play an active role
in EU-funded projects on RRI.The Call cannot specify this, but it might be formulated in such a way
that it is clear that such a possibility will be favoured.
7
See http://www.efc.be/about/Pages/History-Mission-and-Vision.aspx
6
Topic 4: H2020 – how can other areas of H2020 do RRI – moving from constraints to
openings, from red lines to new frames
(Here, we should accept projects smaller than €3million, because we have to adapt to what is suitable
for the different parts of Horizon 2020.)
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020, but it is not
immediately clear what the issues are and how they can be addressed. There are different
characterizations of RRI, offered by the Commission Services, by commentators and by scholars.
Recently, in the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 4-5 December 2014, a characterization
was used that may be taken as somewhat authoritative, for the time being:
“Responsible research and innovation is a process for better aligning research
and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society. It implies
close cooperation between all stakeholders in various strands comprising:
science education, definition of research agendas, access to research results and
the application of new knowledge in full compliance with gender and ethics
considerations.” (16505/14, 3353rd Council Meeting)
This characterization is open-ended, so there is room for further articulation according to the
situation in the relevant domains of science, technology and innovation.Experts from different parts
of Horizon 2020 and selected project participants could come together to compare experiences and
identify opportunities to develop RRI in various parts of Horizon 2020. Such activities can have
additional support through funding from SWAFS, or could be positioned as a CSA in the SWAFS Work
Programme 2016-2017. In both cases, some general framings are relevant.
In our Strategic Opinion of July 2014, we introduced the idea of an RRI Diagnosis for each of the parts
of Horizon 2020, including substantial issues of science and technology development, societal
aspects, and processes and institutions, and suggested each part should try to articulate an adequate
RRI Diagnosis, and formulate actions and activities to address items from the diagnosis (which might
include work to improve the diagnosis). This could be articulated as a “story” about overall present
and future developments, which would then lead to identifying RRI aspects and activities.
To get an idea of possibilities to do so, we can use the example of DG CNECT. Their ‘story’ is one of
the emergence of an online world, on top of, and interacting with, the evolving offline world. Key
features of ongoing and future developments are “sticky interactions” and “smart environments”.
One can insert challenging issues into this picture, like identity, privacy, freedom, fairness,
attention/agenda, and thus identify substantial RRI topics of concern and how they can be taken up
as an integral part of the ongoing “story”.Such a “story”, or diagnosis as we phrased it, allows RRI to
be integral part of a more coherent Work Programme in Horizon 2020, as well as outside it. It is thus
important to invest in it, in each part of Horizon 2020, as well through CSA projects, funded or cofunded through SWAFS.
I note that eventual desirable outcomes depend just as much on what is happening overall, also in
the Member States, than what can be done within the confines of Horizon 2020. Still, Horizon 2020
activities can play a leading role, through articulating an evidence-based diagnosis/story, and through
taking up and further developing approaches and tools. Sophisticated public engagement, including
co-creation, would be one set of tools. It is also interesting to explore the notion of‘society-readiness
level’, just as there is use of a notion of technology-readiness level (TRL). The actual practices of using
TRL can be somewhat limited, considering that technological readiness levels are actually always
sociotechnical, i.e. include economic and social (and sometimes political) readiness.
7
Topic 5: Science education outside schools (SEOS)
There is a wealth of experience with, and analysis of, science education in schools, both secondary
education and higher education. One may be concerned about the adequacy of such science
education, and its relevance for societal challenges, and the SWAFS Work Programme could,
exceptionally, take up on attempts to remedy such issues. More important, however, is science
education outside schools, as it is pervasive and under-analysed as to its nature and effects. Science
education “outside schools”refers, somewhat polemically, to informal science education, i.e. outside
the regular (Higher) Education Institutions, and the science-education effects of non-educational
activities. Science musea are an obvious example, but also popular education in various forms,
including the role of media. Science education outside schools also encompasses the idea of
‘knowledge neighbourhoods’, as well as the increasing interest in, and practice of, citizen
sciencedevelopments in the direction of Open Science, Open Learning (cf. experience in Marie Curie).
The development of MOOCs is interesting because they can be, and are, offered by non Higher
Education Organizations, and are then accepted as qualifications. Thus, formal schooling is becoming
less exclusive, and in the emerging grey area, various initiatives can flourish. Of course, there are
issues of quality control and accreditation. At the other side of the new formal-informal continuum,
there is what one could call learning to become “science savvy” in our knowledge-permeated
societies. Acquiring knowledge, and in particular, evaluating knowledge, often with help of Internet,
is what happens all the time, and should be recognized for what it contributes in terms of more
sophisticated consumers, scientific citizenship, and also job skills.
Thus, the topic of science education “outside schools” has two main components. One is to map and
understand what is happening, and analyse drivers and effects. Two is to consider the important
impacts that can be achieved, where formal schooling can have difficulty to do so. This difficulty has
been recognized before, for example in the early work of Basil Bernstein, but not for issues of science
in society.The aim of this topic is to open up these phenomena and issues for study, and in such a
way that directions for further study and action can be articulated.
8
Topic 6: Integrating society in science and innovation (ISSI)
There is increasing interest, and occasional experiments in processes of co-construction (including
agenda-building and policy inputs) and co-production(including citizen science). Sometimes, it is
deemed sufficient to have such processes occur, but one could also consider their content and how
society would be integrated through approaches like value-sensitive design and gender-sensitive
design. There are also combinations of process and content, as with place-based activities involving
smart cities, living labs, and the regional dimension linked to Smart Specialisation Strategies. For the
gender dimension, there has been a call to outline the loss to society/economy of not taking gender
aspects into account in research organization and research design. Such questions can be raised for
other aspects as well.
While traditional approaches to public engagement will remain, this topic overlaps with the ‘new
wave’ of public engagement where ‘co-creation’ is a key notion. It would complement the sometimes
heavily technology and/or systems oriented approaches in other parts of Horizon2020.
The topic is about large issues, and quite varied, so it could become an umbrella for all sorts of
projects. Some issues are being dealt with elsewhere in Horizon2020, for example by the Expert
Advisory Group on gender issues, although the question of gender-sensitive design and its outcomes
deserves a place in this topic as well.
An important focus for study is the question of what outcomes are being realized. Co-construction
and societally sensitive design are well-intentioned, but what happens will be refracted through
practicalities embedded in existing institutions and interests. This has been documented extensively
for ICT. There is a structural element here, in the sense that co-construction and design necessarily
take place at an early stage, while there are many other factors and circumstances at play in the later
stages which co-determine outcomes.
There is a similar structural problem with regulation: good intentions, but actual implementation on
the ground falls short. There have been calls for ‘implementable regulation’, where one would start
with what are achievable effects in practice, rather than good intentions. This not just fatalism as
already declarations of good intentions and possible further action will have effects.
Topic 6, on possible outcomes of integration of society in science, should include the aspect of
‘implementable integration’. This requires study of dynamics of such initiatives, and will definitely
improve their reflexivity.
9
Topic 7: Innovation value chains and openings for RRI (IVCOR)
The specific topic starts with innovation chains. There are variations in the terminology, e.g. product
value chains or filières, but the key idea is that of criss-crossing innovation value chains. Innovations
and prototypes, business-to-business products and final products move from one organization
(entity) to another and are transformed in the process, value is added in the transactions and
appropriated. Third-party actors are involved such as standardisation bodies and insurance
companies, but also, and increasingly, NGOs. While there is a direction to the eventual product
flows, initiatives may emerge anywhere, there is no simple linearity (cf. the chain-link model of
innovation). Chains can change, split, be re-arranged, criss-cross, and co-evolvewith changing
business models. There are uncertainties involved, for example with the promise of large-area
polymeric semi-conducting materials that can be printed. Will the key driver of the eventual chains
in this domain be the materials manufacturers, the printing companies, or the various application
sectors? In general, industry (plus service) structures consist of webs of criss-crossing chains (and
they are industry structures +, consisting of more than the traditional economic actors).
Given this perspective, the key point of this topics is that there are openings for RRI in these webs of
chains, building on what is there already and/or inserting itself if there is an opportunity.
Thus, the topic starts with the economic world rather than see RRI as only impinging on it from the
outside. It draws on the theme of exploration of intermediaries and boundary spanners identified in
the EAG’s Strategic Opinion of July 2014, but creates an additional focus.The topic will strengthen the
SWAFS knowledge base, but also promote changes in research funding and research performing
organizations, as well as in and across organizations involved in innovation and its embedding in
society. Because these further kinds of organizations are included, this adds to the Call for Action as
formulated in the Rome Declaration.
Topic and sub-topics
Often chains are already in place, people know the transactions that are necessary, processes and
procedures have evolved that can now be used to also address elements of RRI. Total Quality
Management (TQM) is a good example, because it extends along the chain, and the notion of
quality can be extended to include responsiveness (to other actors and other values). The
experience with TQM also shows what a challenge it can be to put it in place and maintain it.
Corporate Social Responsibility is recognized in the corporate world, but in spite of some attempts
in that direction, does not yet include R&D, product development and embedding in society in its
scope. (Since 2010, there is also an international standard, ISO 26000, on social responsibility.)
Interestingly, the experience with stage-gate approaches8 in R&D and product development, as
practised within a few firms, has been taken up by the UK EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council) as a framework for its approach to RRI, and applied in a few cases. What could be
explored is whether stage-gate processes could be applied across organizations in an innovation
chain, and create openings to include RRI not just in the assessments during the “gate”, but also
during the “stage”, to anticipate on the eventual assessment.
When novelties (new options) are introduced, articulated and taken up, chains can shift and split
(for example in additive manufacturing, and in the uses of mobile telephony) and new chains may
emerge. This can just happen, but increasingly, actors try to anticipate and influence what happens
to serve their interests, or otherwise pursue desirable goals. There is joint strategy articulation,
occasionally supported by Constructive Technology Assessment, road mapping, and indications and
narratives to monitor performance in a forward-looking manner, as in notions like technological
readiness. There are openings here, for example by adding “societal readiness” levels to
8http://www.stage-gate.com/resources_stage-gate_full.php
10
technological readiness levels, and making sure that “societal readiness” has pro-active elements, is
not just another term for “societal acceptability”.
More generally, the reference to responsibility that is part of RRI is not about retrospective
responsibility, as in accountability and liability, but about prospective responsibility, with its
expectation, perhaps obligation, to do well. The requirement can be seen as a call “to show an
honest effort”. This phrase has been used to assess technology forcing measures (as in the
California air pollution legislation). One opening for RRI would then be to operationalize it as “an
honest effort” to achieve desirable outcomes in innovation chains and eventual product-value
chains, responding to societal values.
This analysis of possible openings for RRI becoming visible through the perspective of a web of
crisscrossing and shifting/emerging chains, is not exhaustive. It shows, though, that it is a generative
perspective. It can also contribute to other parts of Horizon 2020.For example, questions about the
role of SMEs, or of small-holder farmers, can be explored by inquiring into their functioning in
present and emerging webs of crisscrossing chains. “Open innovation” can become more than a
fashionable catchword, at the same time making operational how RRI fits in.
The topic will show, and induce, relevant change, without having to go through definitional
exercises about RRI first, because the thrust is to go for openings to do better.Rather than ‘growth’
per se, often defined in terms of competition, the result will be higher quality (“better technology in
a better society”).
11
Topic 8: A Linked-up Global World of RRI (GLOBAL)
At the moment, “a linked-up global world of RRI”, is a future, and speculative, perspective. But the
world is definitely linked up, and there is recurrent mention of, and occasional work on, RRI-type
issues. In the field of nanotechnology, for some time (since the early 2000s) there were platforms
and spaces for dialogue. What is the role of regulation, and of civil society in a global society? For
industry, there is the dynamics of firms wanting to be “good firms” rather than “cowboy firms”.
Similarly, there is the concern about “rogue states”.
One might actually consider that RRI, and ethical behavior more generally, are or could become a
competitive advantage, definitely for Europe and directly contribute to Europe’s jobs and growth
agenda. That possibility will be one element, or sub-topic, of this topic. It is important to give
industry’s ‘ethical behaviour’ a concrete foothold, and not to leave it to abstract deliberations. To
this end, domain and case studies in key areas, such as data protection, bio-economy, waste
management, energy and possibly the EU’s ‘Industrial Renaissance’ policy, will be relevant. Other
sectors of activities can be considered as case studies as well provided that they yield significant
insight into the possible rise of the global world of RRI.
There are interesting projects already that can be built on for this RIA, like the EU-funded project
ProGReSS, which aims to promote a European approach to Responsible Research and Innovation
(RRI) through a global network, including partners and advisers from Europe, the US, China, Japan,
India, Australia and South Africa, and involvement of relevant stakeholders from academia,
international organisations, industry, SME research, NGOs, policy advisors and research
funders.There is also the GEST (Global Ethics in Science and Technology) project, which has recently
led to a major book publication Science and Technology Governance and Ethics (Springer Publishers),
comparing Europe, China and India.
There is a link with Topic 3 (which is proposed as a CSA). For the present topic, an RIA, there appear
at least three overlapping foci (or subtopics):
 Identification and analysis of platforms and spaces for RRI-type issues
 Comparative studies of major and minor players (continuing the work of GEST, and to some
extent also ProGReSS), taking into account differences especially the situation of developing
countries
 Advantages (up to competitiveness) of RRI, and ethical behaviour in general.
It is also important to locate these questions and trends in current and emerging governance.
12
Annex 1
13