 we will discuss policies whereas on Tuesday culture and scales and Wednesday the institutional change if you feel you would like to see some of the other recordings they're all available on the website today RRI and policies with two eminent people as a keynote interview so with two persons really versed in RRI and policies first we will I will say something about Lyndon Farar our first guest he has a background in social science and humanities and he is a policy officer in the mainstreaming responsible research and innovation sector and he has worked before for the commission as well in several projects so he is really a very important and interesting person to look at that to to inform us about the questions about research and innovation the RRI way then René von Schoenberg our second interview we he has been in RRI well since the very beginning some say he is the inventor and he has a background in STS science and technology studies and philosophy has been with the commission well for more than 20 years he's now also a guest professor at the technical university in Darmstadt Germany and last year he published the international handbook on responsible innovation a global resource so truly important people to raise some questions about RRI and the future of RRI so my first question and that is to Lyndon is how would you characterize the project of RRI would you say it is a movement it is a program it is a policy goal it is a loose set of practices so sometimes we all victim to some confusion in terms how would how is it for you how would you characterize this thank you yes and good morning everyone it's a pleasure to be here with you a very good question of course because I mean different people would probably see themselves you know as being part of all of these three different all of these three different characterizations a project movement program loose set of practices a policy goal of course parts of the philosophy of science as well it comes with all sorts of considerations there too but I think for me and the way that we've tried to introduce this into the programs is to try and consider it a practice why is that because we think that RRI already is has a philosophy behind it and we want to see how we can improve research and innovation by putting this experimenting different ways of putting this into practice across different projects and I think if we approach to any other way we would we have why we're supporting it with with quite a large amount of money I mean we have about 2,000 if not more projects across the framework program in horizon 2020 now which in one way or another take a responsible research and innovation approach now in swaps it will then that we push dimensions dimensions very important institutional change and also for providing a kind of kaleidoscope of different aspects that we think are important for the implementation of responsible research and innovation but what is less widely known is that across the program as a whole the proxy and the emphasis is put on public engagement and that's partially because public engagement is much easier for people to to readily understand we're asking people from all sorts of different disciplines very different jobs to think about how they can do RRI and at some point in time quite early on you'll find in Marie Curie that they pay slightly yes they have a larger view and a bit more in line with the dimension approach I think in horizon Europe if I just mentioned the way that we move if in horizon 2020 it's been about public engagement sometimes it's very downstream engagement in horizon Europe we focus much more on implementation I think the focus on co-design and co-creation is not really there to stir first off academic debates but actually it's put in place practices that can infuse the direction and the content creation of the projects so I think this is a I think this is that change what we see with horizon Europe we move from a sort of public engagement focus which is fine it's important which can include debate and ethics and all these kinds of things to one which is even I think a bit deeper I think the idea of co-design and co-creation is deeper than public engagement so I think if you look at the the legal hooks for responsible research and innovation and not responsible research and innovation practices and in horizon Europe they're much much stronger than in horizon 2020 so I think we can expect quite a big step up probably René has something to say as well but I'll leave it at that yeah okay well thanks a lot and it's also reassuring to hear that it's indeed a thousand projects as you say and that it's the boundaries are a bit vague because sometimes it's on public engagement and our eyes may be less visible but still it's the umbrella that that feeds all of them René would you would you like to comment on the idea how to characterize RRI as a movement or a project or policy goal or or practices as Lyndon said would you say is would you are on his side yes hello everybody it's indeed a pleasure to join this conversation I think the idea of an interview is quite good much better than PowerPoint presentations I believe so well I mean what Lyndon you said RRI as a practice is of course an enormous important component which can be facilitated by a funder like the European Commission for me as you know some may be familiar with my with my writings on top of this all I think is something which you did not mention and that is RRI as a transition towards the new innovation paradigm and it is transition to an innovation paradigm paradigm various institutions are needed to be subject to change so to speak to make this transition possible and I think it relates to two major changes which we will have to work on and the future commission funding program is one element in this the first change is how how we operate in science and there you know as you know and this has also been subject of your investigations is the role of open science where I have a slight correction on your use of the word of open science because for me open science is simply put sharing knowledge and data as early as possible in the research process with all relevant knowledge actors and so open science has two elements a research output in open terms via data publications but also openness towards actors you know as a true RRI component if you want to to say that but primarily aimed at the scientific community as such to make science more efficient or responsive to societal challenges and also more reliable because we have two types of crises in science one is relates to the reproducibility of information of data and secondly and this is important for RRI we have a deficit in terms of addressing social relevant subjects and you know as US NSTS professor have a long-term experience in in that area as well and this has to do with how we organize science so opens the institutionalization of open science will be a correction for that as a necessary component of RRI and not a sufficient one but an accessory component and this is only make this will only be possible if we change our research behavior and in order to change research behavior away from publishing as fast as possible and as much as possible towards knowledge sharing as early as possible we need a rewarding system an incentive system for science which rewards scientists precisely for doing that and now they are punished for this exactly the same thing and this is why we have this deficit it's one of the five major deficits in the global research and innovation system so I have still five others but I only will mention one other one so this one is very important and this one is of course high on the agenda of the of the European Commission trying to push notably universities and other funders towards rewarding more research behaviors rather than research outputs but this and now of course COVID comes in as a gift for open science because when we want to have a vaccine for example then it becomes immediately clear to everybody that with a business as usual science we won't get it we only get it if we have a thorough public governance even at the global level in order to arrange and make scientists behave in a way as we do not as we want to do with open science namely sharing information as early as possible this is happening with COVID but it only happens if you make all kinds of promises if you say to scientists well you can you know normally they cannot publish on things which are not original anymore so if they share things early then they cannot publish anymore so you have to make arrangements with with publishers to say okay they can still publish after they have shared data for example and these are things are enormously important the the other element which also the COVID crisis makes very clear is that that's the innovation part and this is the of RRI and this is the least addressed issue I believe over the last 10 years and that relates to market deficits as we all know this vaccine will not be produced automatically by industry actually they don't have any interest in that as with other major things on earth you know like the major disease on earth which affects most people is malaria and on that multinationals will not fund anything because they don't see their financial benefits it's the same with with a vaccine we have now we now are subsidizing multinationals with billions of dollars and still they look forward to make a profit out of this vaccine so we have an enormous market deficit and this can only be changed by a socio-economic innovation which relates to the market as let's say a constraining force for technology in terms of a type of ethics which says we should not do this or not do that for example we don't clone animals or we don't clone humans it's forbidden this type of ethics which restrains the market but we don't have incentives for the markets to produce socio-social desirable outfits so things which we would like to have now this is precisely the point again where the commission also can come in the new future on the european european framework for research and innovation is the issues of mission-oriented research I think I would invite you all to have a look at it in that because it's very important that people from an error eye perspective you know start to occupy this type of business because the mission-oriented research is really a change from moving away from traditional funding of key technologies be it nano or bio or or things like that in the hope to get economic benefits which then of course in the end turn out to be an illusion towards a more social research which is related to a social objective so unfortunately sometimes these mission-oriented research is sold as an issue which is something like bringing a man to the moon or something like a technological potential but this is a misunderstanding what a social mission actually is it's about addressing social objective with research and with actors to which linden already referred to extensively so there's this co-creation and co-design which with you with your project have done some experiments with it is very important and this also needs to be institutionalized so I think I leave it by that I talked a lot I think sorry how yeah thanks so you indeed covered quite some ground already and so you stressed that responsible research in innovation should be seen also as a transition towards a new innovation paradigm and and that could could be a remedy for several deficits and you pointed out to the deficit of the research system but also the market deficit that's quite clear that that brings me to my my question you already mentioned is the idea of open science so some people say well the whole term of responsible research innovation has had its peak already and now we're in the days of open science and we should sell all our efforts on the under this umbrella and this is what the commission is into and so yeah so as a provocation I my question is would you say that RRI is eaten up by open science or that it really has a an identity beside that I come to linden to whether you would recognize this threat that some people phrase and feel or is there is there hope for RRI as a as a future label I think both are needed I mean for me RRI and open science although they they have quite a lot in common they're not they're not the same you know they have different constituencies that have different historical trajectories they're they appeal to different sectors and stakeholders and they're likely to affect change in different ways I mean RRI is much more about changing the direction of research innovation and creating visions you know and also with open science we have a very broad approach now which is very much about this sort of collaborative approach involving all the knowledge actors as René just said quite a lot of focus on citizen science things like this but open science I think you know most people don't necessarily recognize it in this very wide framing and you know and science open science doesn't really talk to the innovation community so much either and you know RRI is very much about breaking down silos between research and innovation and although open science can apply in many cases to innovation and just the term itself is not very useful so for me both are useful I think you can see that open science is you know we repeat this term again and again the modus operandi for horizon Europe this is great but responsible research and innovation is also there it's mentioned in the legal texts in at least two or three places and I think what you'll find is that RRI has influenced a lot of the architecture of horizon Europe without mentioning it by name and perhaps this is the way that you can have the most effect because you know the terminology RRI is off-putting to some and you know and other people don't understand what it is it's too complicated but instead we focus on on RRI related kind of concepts and activities and you know the missions approach if you look at the ex ante impact assessment it pretty much says that RRI is going to underpin the approach to the missions you know so this is the way that we've approached as we've seen that RRI also within the commission is not always finding the full support that it that it might do just like all concepts we find other ways to promote responsible research and innovation so I don't see a threat here really I see that they're both complementary perhaps in the future there'll be a new the emergence of a new more unifying concept that takes into account both I open an inclusive research and innovation something like that maybe that's not even necessary but the moment I don't see the threat I think it's a is positive to focus on both okay good that that's also reassuring I'm sure Renee has a lot to say about that but I will skip that because I have some other questions for you as well Renee so we are in this final summit of fit for RRI which which was focusing on how to implement it and how to make tools and training for research and filming organizations and well there's also sometimes the critique and the worry that if we develop it too much into tools and toolboxes and trainers and that it instrumentalizes and that it becomes a sort of list of our checklist so that the reflection that is needed for RRI is then a bit pushed to the background would you agree with with this risk do you see this happening as well because there are many of these projects we heard about race we heard about the toolboxes for RRI would you say there is a tendency to make it a bit more instrumental and and to have a checklist instead of reflection Renee yeah it's a good point Harro I think one needs all of that a little bit of course I mean everybody wants a reflection everyone's everyone also wants to have practice but for me yet again there is something which goes a little bit beyond those things who to make it possible and you know I have I have dubbed this already in 2007 in a working paper which actually led up to the notion of the RRI that's about the organization of what I call collective co-responsibility and this means that you know as we just discussed a little bit of differences between open science and RRI you know Lyndon rightly pointed out that RRI is about giving research and innovation a direction this is what open science not necessarily does and how do you all how do you organize research and innovation in a way that you give it a direction for example make it possible that vaccines will be produced like we did with Ebola and in and in Zika in an early phase but we use it as an exceptional thing rather than a standard practice now how do we organize a standard practice for this and this is where it comes to the tools so for example I mean this is where I'm a criticism criticism sometimes I call myself I'm you know you know all these statements are marks sometimes I've said I'm not a marxist so sometimes I say I'm not an RRI because you know when it comes to to ethics it's not about that researchers you know within a particular practice will have to climb a higher moral ground in order to do RRI this is ridiculous what we want to do is organize a practice so that RRI becomes institutionalized and that any researcher independent of of its own moral or ethical motives will practice RRI and this is only possible if you organize it and this is part of the transition of the paradigm you can only institutionalize this if funders will reward for example the constitution of what I call no less coalitions no less coalition between different actors and you force them to become that you you force them sort of speak or you incentivize them to become mutual responsive you know it was part of my original definition of RRI and this institutionalization is very important and this has also fell out for the market economy market science policy interface which is insufficiently addressed yet although there are brilliant projects under swaps for example probably Linda knows more detail about it for instance the pre-smart project which contributed to new RRI standards for companies for example but this is also this they are working on the sort of institutionalization of collective co-responsibility where then of course all the tools can come in and but for me you know of course I'm a philosopher I look from this side you know we have to we have to rearrange our institutional settings here and then all these elements what you say a reflection of course but I mean like Richard Owens and Phil's McNaughton's definition of RRI which is very process oriented I can all agree with but it's not sufficient for me so for me it's it's I am a sort of a strong RRI is in a sense I want to work on the transition to this new innovation paradigm which requires more of these actors and this is why we also had this open science policy platforms in 2016 which was backed by all member states to work towards another system for science to operate and of course we only make a relative successes there because there's a lot of inertia I mean you know it from your own university so I so I leave it by that because I have the tendency to talk too long you can stop me Harrow well it's it's always worth listening to you so but what I what I what I find interesting is that you talk about strong RRI and that suggests there's also a weak RRI I'm not I'm not sure whether you would like to make a dichotomy in the field and define some new churches here but but I find this an interesting I don't want to do that Harrow that's a mistake what I wanted to highlight is that I I I I think it's important to reflect on these institutional changes and as you mentioned in your first question in a certain way responsible research and innovation is a socio-economic innovation as well so it's in the yes it's on that level and this is where all the other elements like collective core responsibility changing the most apparently of science changing the mark you know addressing the market deficits and so on and so on becomes important and then in in in you know in the stream of this all these other elements you have mentioned with with with your tools and things you do with fit for a rider of course all relevant they belong they are part of it but they can only work effectively if we work on towards this transition yeah yeah I see that so I will ask Linden then so this this enormous amount of instrument instruments that have been developed would you say this is somehow apart from very useful also maybe a risk that it loses sight of where it is I mean you heard the ideas of Renee that in in the end it should be towards transition but it can also it can also paralyze people that there are so many tools available and which one to use and and is there any some of those concerns with you as well or would you say well it's usually usually quite useful that we all have these tools and and trainings and that's why it's a good question because of course there are a lot of different tools out there for lots of different purposes I think you know with science within for society the idea was to really start piloting this approach to getting institutions to open up to society and later on there was a particular emphasis put on the sustainability of these kinds of changes I think with these kinds of projects that you've seen throughout the last seven years there's a lot of piloting there's experimentation there's case studies and it makes a lot of sense to create handbooks and tool books things like this at the same time there's been a lot of focus on the empirical practice building theory hopefully from the practice not necessarily only the other way around you know and this is also very important but I think what we've also seen is that you know the R&I system is a big beast it's difficult to get it to move and the small amount of funding that we can provide in science within for society and moving forward in the in the era part which is sort of a successor to swaths in some ways means that we need to approach this in a different way and I think it's a good point in time to start consolidating this you know I think we have this evidence base we have practitioners we have experienced organizations and we have the legal text pushing in this particular direction and we really need to scale up these experiences to many more organizations we need to get better value for money out of this as well and I think with the with the era part this is something that we really need to try and focus on this it's really sort of valorizing all of these toolkits maybe some of them aren't used in name but the learning of them should come into some kind of consolidated approach and we need to find ways to support institutions maybe not through the traditional project funding of two or three million over three years to do something but perhaps through for instance cascading grant where you have kind of business support that provides services and consultancy and sort of holds the hands of institutions that are interested in in making these changes you know shouldn't just be about receiving the money the institutions need to see that there's something useful for them and I think with Horizon Europe we've created an incentive there to really open up because they'll have to do it a lot more to participate in the widest range of actions that there are so I don't really see a trade-off I can understand that there's a worry that you know we have 15 toolkits on this and five handbooks on something else but I think all of this adds to the evidence base and the practice base that we can that can be made use of later on yeah okay thanks thanks I have a question that is related to that and you're already pointed to this community of practitioners so indeed we are convening here now as a community of practitioners and on the one hand that is is is good that that we have people who who somehow dedicate their thinking and their practice to to RRI on the other hand he would not like to see a sort of task division where RRI is being the task of the RRI practitioners and the others can just go on with business as usual that is would be self-defeating so what would you see as the task of a community of practice of RRI as we are now convening here how would you see that Lyndon? Well of course the community itself can only really answer that I mean from my perspective you know we've given an injection of money here to to build up RRI and science within poor society and horizon 2020 really it would be really good to see this community be able to influence and cross-fertilize other thematic areas now you know it's important to bring experts together and to focus but it's also important at some point to reach out and to say look we have the tools we have the means of doing things better rather than starting from scratch and I think if we want to see the kinds of successes that the missions are talking about we really need to have this RRI expertise in there the same goes for the clusters but of course that's a you know that's not taking quite the same portfolio approach that the missions would have I don't know how many people have seen the Green Deal call which came out very recently I think in a way it's you know it's a model for how RRI and open science and societal engagement can really be very well integrated into thematic areas if you look across the the 10 or the 11 different areas there's an entire part which is related to societal engagement that's fine but you also see it elsewhere you see references to responsible research and innovation the mori indicators and things like that so for me the challenge would be to try and break out of course there's a challenge for us within the commission as well to try and ensure that the programs reflect the legal ambitions that have been put down because the legal provisions are very strong but of course we have a nursery as well within the institution so we need to constantly remind and constantly open it up to the RRI community but it takes both to make this work okay good good yeah so let's continue on that base then and as we are a community of practitioners and and thinkers on RRI we also have some people intervening with the JET and having some questions for you as well so I have a question here from Ellen Marie Forsberg to to I think especially Renee where you would say yes there could be a transition to a new innovation paradigm but what about the European Innovation Council it is about potentially extremely socially sensitive technology breakthroughs but there is hardly any RRI there what to do so do you do you recognize this concern Renee it's a new question but it's a maybe you feel a bit not in the situation to really respond to this but well stay as much as you can okay no I do I have the same concern actually so we see that as an RRI community I believe well I think what's what's what's valid for the framework program is valid for the Innovation Council as well we have to deal of course with a certain let's say you know if you look to the legal arrangements of what we now have in the new framework program in my view the theory is quite good we have a responsible research as innovation as an objective much stronger actually than just a cross-cutting issue because it means that everybody has to align with it so also the Innovation Council but then the question is will it then actually happen so so this will of course only happen if if and this is actually where the research community which we have built with these projects under swaths I think is so important because as you rightly say we have now an RRI community and we have built it up in a very short time I think this is a major success as such you know independent on what the individual projects now deliver or not deliver you know but it's a success that we have created this community and it's very important that this community keeps keeps targeting also of course you know institutions such as the Innovation Council or even the ERC which of course have to one way or another comply with you know with things from bureaucrats as us to say well you have to do a RRI whether you like it or not so but the problem is of course that you cannot do these things properly if people are not convinced by it and funding especially at the European level is applicant driven and if applicants don't understand the elements of RRI open science well then it may fail so this is why I think with this community which we have built which you know I repeat again I think I'm very happy with that that's you know regardless of differences of opinion we do have this community and this community can also engage itself with all these other institutions and other elements because now you have a legal basis to do it it's not just like in the past where RRI was a was an a voluntary thing you know where applicants they say we want to do it and we can get funding for it now there is a framework we can refer to it with a legal basis it's fantastic but of course we are dependent on who will implement it and this is of course the critical moment I mean things can be implemented badly with a good theory or the other way around the funders like the commission cannot determine the practice this is up to the applicants yeah okay good so that that brings me to to the point of well where we are now and currently we are in the pandemic situation of COVID-19 which is shaking up the research system in all kinds of ways so we would instead of meeting each other we have conferences like this on zoom you will see that people change their field work because they have to change their plans so it's yeah for good or for worse the the system is shaken by COVID-19 and Renee you already said something about the open science and and how that creates opportunities so my question to Lyndon is would you would you say there are other opportunities that are now available for RRI because we have this COVID-19 pandemic I mean it's good to reflect on where we are now and whether whether we could also make something productive out of out of the unfortunate situation well it's a it's a million dollar question or million euro question I don't really like to think of opportunities coming out of the crisis but I know what you mean at the same time and also I'm afraid I don't really want to second guess because I think you know a lot of this hinges on on what on how long this lasts and whether we're able to to rise to the challenge and whether there's any terrible mistakes or unforeseen you know things down the line for us so I mean I think it's shown that we're you know unprepared for the most obvious issues I mean several you know many reports have shown that pandemic is one of the most likely sort of disasters that could befall society and there's been warning signs throughout and I haven't really been listened to in the same way that they might have done so there's all sorts of there's issues all over one thing I'd like to mention for anyone who's who's not aware is that we will have a euro barometer probably next spring following in the long tradition of the science and society public opinion about science kind of surveys that have been going on for decades now we tried to build some time series there on knowledge and views and ethics around science but we also put the emphasis even more on the sort of co-design co-creation elements and it could be quite interesting to see what the results show because of course euro barometers in some you know you arguably sort of gold standard evidence about what you know people's interactions and understandings and feelings about the value of science so I prefer to wait until the results throughout to the euro barometer before saying whether I think it's creating you know whether it creates a real problem for science or whether it's an opportunity moving forwards yeah Renee would you would you add something to to how to respond to the current situation and and not just be the victim but also try to make something better out of it you're muted Renee you're muted okay so thanks thanks Harro well you know I'm just in the course of an article with some colleagues of yours and I really want to emphasize that the the whole idea of error and its implementation is an unfinished project I mean we are only halfway there or maybe only 30% but we did make some enormous steps forward in the recent let's say 20 years different components and we learned from how to deal with new technologies in a progressive way there are some dark sides on the horizon horizon of course you know nationalistic tendencies lack of global governance rather than strengthening it a letter we actually need for error and open science at the global level so you know we we are moving in this spectrum but I say that I would say still that there is a real positive change over the years of course there are some fallbacks now and then but it's an unfinished project you know as we already mentioned you know rising Europe in itself the theory is very good the applicants have to make use of it the community has to keep engaged and then I think I'm confident we can do it I think on those different elements like the progress of open science will happen now with the help of COVID actually I hope that post COVID there will be also more definitive changes in other areas on the issue of market deficits I'm a little bit less optimistic but I think some neoliberal ideas has really come to an end so although there you see you see changes so I think we have to keep on keep on working together okay okay so we're coming to the end of our encounter and the the dual interview so if I take that one step further Renee so what would you be your advice on proceeding RRI from where we are now given what we have in academic underpinning and our set of examples and approaches what is the step forward what what would you advise this community to do now and well of course there are many things to do but what would be on your top priority list I think the top priority for me would be to to popularize the mission oriented approach for research I think this is your natural client and this is where it's it's it's it's happening I mean virtually all the elements of RRI are formally included in in in the programs of the missions they are they are co-created they will be co-designed citizens will be will be given input to define research agendas you know but of course it's a matter of the quality of implementation we'll have to see and it will be done on a scale this we have to realize it will be done on a scale never practice ever before in the history of mankind this type of mission oriented research also doesn't exist anywhere else and only at the european level so this is a fantastic opportunity yeah and so if this if only one or two missions will succeed in terms of addressing social objectives and giving direction to innovation then we have great examples to build on that because we need examples of good RRI we have still too little we have this is was the weakness of the swaps program maybe to some extent we did not deliver on on giving directions towards innovation and this the missions can do this is your first objective and the other one I think is around the social around the S disease you know you're consistent with with RRI progress will become failure driven it's now even advocated by our director general so that's really a paradigm change in our institution I mean our former does director general would never say that so there is an there is a social also a change in the bureaucracy towards these things and I think this is an enormous help so we are now in a situation where quite some political actors and and this we need this is around missions is around political actors as well they are behind us so we have to use this opportunity and so use this community to go after it don't let it be done only by technicians okay so that's a very clear message and also well it really gives some encouraging spirit here linden would you would you add something to that or would you just agree with of course I agree with what René said I mean he's important to point out you know I think it's a window of opportunity here we can try and keep this window open as widely as possible but it's there at the moment I think it's there for the taking try to you know so I think it's important to try and implement RI outside the RI community there's one thing there's one risk associated with this you know we start seeing the draft work programs of the entire program being developed now and we're having a look at this internally and I'm struck with the fear that actually is their capacity within the you know the RI community in its wider sense you know here I'd also include the citizen science community called participatory research civil society is their capacity within society to live up and step up to this challenge you know that is my my slight fear now that we've created all these opportunities because we know that this we're convinced that this is the better way of doing research and innovation responding to the challenges but perhaps you know we're asking too much and you know maybe one answer there would be think about capacity building think about how you can prepare for this because of course if you have excess capacity in your organizations and your community you're able to respond better at the same time of course this is just a fear it may not be well founded but it's just something to throw out there perhaps now is a good opportunity okay so we're really heading towards the end and I really would like to thank you both very very much it's helpful for us when we work on these issues to to have some encounter with people from the policymaking areas and it's also good as we are approaching the end of this program that that we think about there are many many more possibilities for next steps and it's good to hear that it's well it's we're still underway it's maybe not even halfway so and and I also fully agree there are so many challenges ahead not also not just in terms of big programs but also in terms of societal challenges they well yeah science and technology is too good to leave it just to engineers and well we should make sure that there is societal engagement and direction and reflection so thanks a lot and well I'm not in the opportunity to give you a bottle of wine or something but I really can assure that people enjoyed having you here and we will continue with the program at half past 10 so people could leave this meeting and log into the next sessions session two or three so um yeah it's now shown by by Pedro so thank you very much and see you in the next sessions great thank you Aro I will try to find a way to offer a bottle of Portuguese wine good I will inform you about that later okay so please join the the session so we can we have a break now for three four minutes we are already sharing the links for this session so we will have two parallel sessions starting at the of past 10 RRI is the cross cutting issue and mainstreaming RRI in the European research area so choose your session and join so the links are here in the chat and are also of course in the in the web page of the program so nothing changed for these links only we only have an issue with the link for the first session so be aware of that and join the those one of those two sessions thank you so be be free to to to close your your session Aro and we will keep this open just for some minutes to inform people about the the other two sessions but you can close the program