 The original title was my streaming error right in the ERA with our two speakers that I said, but indeed, we will more in depth enlarge the concept and starting from the pathways declaration, work on how to make our right work luckily. So, we will try to discuss with Alem and Alex about the culture change journey of institutional input implementation, giving contribution for more than 10 SWAPs project that signed together the pathways to transformation declaration. Is that correct Alem Marie? Yeah, Alex is the main organizer here, but it sounds correct to me, Alex. Okay. We can start or we have to wait for him for this panel. He is here. Okay, great. So I give you the floor to you. Thank you, yeah. Okay. Yeah, sorry, I had to follow the link sent by Twitter because the others somehow didn't work. I'm just setting myself up here. How many colleagues, how many colleagues have joined? We are 15. 15. Okay. So the others don't seem to have had the same problems as I have. We can assume that everyone else has their links. So give me a second to set everything else up. I'm sharing my slides, I suppose. Technically. Yes, Alex. I think I'll need the administration rights first yet. There should be a green button in the middle in the bottom. You're a co-guest. I can see this from the participant list. Okay, great. Literally green just now. I don't know, technology is not with me today, but we shouldn't be checking for as far as dealing with this issue. Okay, everyone, if everyone's ready, then I think I'd like to, first of all, welcome everyone, Adam, Marie and I are going to keep it rather short in terms of our inputs. And we wanted to make this, how do we call it an engagement workshop or anyway, highly participatory engaging workshops where we work with you and co-create with you the ideas and outputs. Plan would be to basically do four things. That's why there are three bullet points. Not just kidding. First of all, to start from a perspective which most of us know, which are, which is the project perspective. We agreed that I would do that with a project that we recently finished, which I think was the largest RI project in quite some time, the Nucleus project. I keep that very short then to embark on that cross project initiative, which has already been mentioned just now, the pathways initiative from 2019, which is the, what the title says, fulfilling the promise of discussing about culture change as a journey for institutions to implement it. And then we want to not stop where we are, but we want to look ahead as to the next framework program and look for some RA culture in it. And as already discussed just with René and Lyndon, we are not entirely convinced yet that this culture is mainstreamed through the next framework program. So that's the plan for the next three steps. And then the fourth is the main discussion with everyone from your side. Please don't hesitate to already collect questions while we're presenting. We're keeping it short anyway. And I'm not very much looking forward to the discussion done. Are there any immediate questions about the plan to go ahead with the session like that? What the order, any technical issues so far I should be aware of doesn't seem to be the case. Okay, and I just go ahead. Yeah. Yes, I think everything is working. Yes. Great. That's a relief this morning. So just briefly, a nucleus project for me in Europe for four years. It was a global one that is also included partners from South Africa and I've just actually a colleague from South Africa from NRF joining this session, also from China. The main four learnings from the project perspective were that our eyes very much about the quality of the process much more than the activities or the results which also reflects a lot. I think the key notes or the kickoff discussion this morning that institutional change is not when you employ a public engagement officer. So institutional change is not if suddenly university has a gender equality plan, but otherwise doesn't live up to the plan, and so on. The second learning that context sensitivity is absolutely fundamental to basically a process in context that we always should see as the idea of a civic university, for instance, the institution as part of a cultural environment, both when it comes to the institutional cultural and disciplinary nature of it. Third learning is that there are significant resistances in the actual governance of research performing organizations when it comes to what we call culture change, and also resistances on the funding organizations and policymakers. So I do share the the hopes and the aspirations and the optimism expressed in this morning's session. I do not share the perception that were were halfway there. The main RI as we try to do it in the project was to implement it across the world in 30 different more people embedded in mobile nuclei to implement it and then to monitor and evaluate the actual change processes. Also in terms of those four dimensions. We developed policy brief as almost every project it swaps in the RI domain, I believe has done. We produce some case studies booklet so we showed how implementation works in individual cases, and you can reach a couple of those points here I don't think I'll have to take you through those in detail. I think it's going to take ages of time and starting late because the aspiration of this session today would be how do we get beyond the perspective of let's do something within one single project with five or 10 or 15 institutions because in the end we're talking about mainstream this across the entire European Union, and the research and innovation systems, or even globally. This understanding led to a collaboration between two projects which now have also both been mentioned so far the RI practice project represented for example by Ella Marie as a project coordinator but she also mentioned it in our keynote recently. Yesterday I think it was. And the nucleus president the two of us teamed up. And we managed to together 11 other projects, so it's not 10 but 11. So for that in the title. So 13 in total projects that thought, what are individual recommendations and how can we bring all of that together as a recommendation to the European Commission saying if you really want this to be mainstream if you want this to be a phenomenon something that changes research and innovation from within, then we need to go a step further we need to make the next step so we signed what we called a declaration on pathways to transformation and that is a transformation of the systems the very systems of research and innovation. That was endorsed endorsed not just by the project beneficiaries which if you want is natural, because they are literally benefiting from that funding, but it was also endorsed by stakeholder organizations in the event we held in 2019 for example that universities association there. We had a store there so also the parliamentary side of things science policy that was I think a very crucial moment when it went beyond the swaths community and even beyond the scientific community. There are a couple of follow up projects, for example ring and grip to projects in which I'm involved, which also co-sign there is here from the next funding period that basically are trying to implement and show that implementation based on the previous learnings from all those projects listed here and from the ones mentioned in the declaration is possible and doable. We put all of that into a journal paper, which I can recommend these slides I believe are going to be shared and then you can actually click on the link which you can't do now but I'm happy to share the link in a minute in the chat so that there is a paper in our art in the Journal of Responsible Innovation summarized that. Let me just very briefly take you through the seven main claims of the declaration, which we think summarizes the challenges and one of the opportunities for implementing this actual institutional culture change in research institutions, research performing institutions. I took a few notes here and then we could look at those because I wanted to also connect. Can you actually still see my slides. If I look at my notes. I hope that works. Yes, we can see your slides. Because I'm maneuvering here between different windows. Thank you for the feedback. Eleanor pointed in her keynote to new institutional theory which might be something that helps again to connect that with what the declaration was trying to do. Because it's not forces that encourages us to see to view a research performing organization in three different ways as a set of structures as a culturally unique body and then of course also with its different degrees of openness towards the stakeholders. And whereas, again, the European Commission is quite confident in saying that, for example, in the swaths evaluation of the report. It says that more than 200 individual institutional changes or change actions actually apparently happened across all those projects which sounds amazing, like 238 universities and research institutes, which apparently went through culture change process, but then the question that also I think the declaration was trying to raise is whether we have the measurability, whether we have the comparability for that for the institutional change. So whether we know whether that actually happened. How many of these more than 200 changes are substantial. How many of those are sustainable. How many of those are sustained in terms of structures and cultures and openness. My personal estimate would be maybe 10% but that's maybe also too pessimistic and I'm happy to discuss it with the group. A couple of minutes. So let me briefly take you through the seven points. First of all, our needs to be embedded in the next framework program that was the primary objective of this. We've, we've, we've have, we've had this learning process. Where do we go from here. It means that individual approaches need to be tailored to the projects. It needs to be budget reserved to it, which I will also be skeptical whether that's what's happened. And we need to communicate guidelines and train the evaluators, applicants and the reviewers, because just saying that this is now an objective or saying that there's a social mission, a social objective as René just framed it. The question is whether that is sufficient if we don't change the system of how proposals are evaluated. If we don't alter the perspectives of reviewers assessing whether RI is actually included in the proposal to sufficient extent. If we don't offer trainings and capacity building for applicants and for research performing organizations to actually do what it is that they're promising in their proposals. Before I forget, by the way, to mention, we're using the seven slides here courtesy of our dear colleague Stephanie Deimer from Flanova Easy in Karlsruhe. And the visuals here are from Heiko Stöber who developed them as part of the New Horizon Visioning Conference in 2017. So just that the references are made. The second point, a bit faster, the challenge of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Again, I don't think I have to explain it to the people I see in the list of participants here. You can also read up on it in the declaration in detail. We reminded the commission that we need to treat RI components as research as not as an appendix as a public engagement activity but it's supposed to change the very research approach methodologically, conceptually, philosophically. The fourth point was that we need to be, that's where the process dimensions come in, which have been mentioned just now from my previous speakers. We need to anticipate, respond, reflect and include. And one of those reflective and inclusive and open dimensions shouldn't be fragmented. We should just be able to cherry pick one and forget about all the others. RI is a package deal. And that's how it should be applied. Open science, citizen science and co-creation are aspects of RI. That's a very tricky discussion, as you may have noticed in the last hour, that there is an assumption that open science can simply replace the RI dimensions. I think that the SDS community would be skeptical whether that's immediately the case, particularly because open science has an output focus, at least as perceived as focusing on the output, whereas RI is very much about the input and the process perspective. So yes, it is part of that, but we have to be careful also with how perceptions of different terms and concepts in the community might distort what the commission is expecting with its policy prescriptions. We suggested an actual hub. So literally an institution supporting institutions in doing RI, in living RI, then mentioned that briefly that you could also imagine something like a mentoring process or a mechanism where institutions are taken by the hand and encouraged and supported in doing what we are expecting of them. And the seventh point was about APs and communities, like societal sounding boards, if you want to include RI experts and or transdisciplinary representatives in the advisory and governing bodies of emerging technologies and mission oriented programs. That means that we have the NGOs, the CSOs and the STS experts on board of the committees who actually make the program decisions and contribute and co-create the proposals. Yet another thing that to my understanding is not really the case. The CSOs being brought on board as unpaid members of an advisory board, that to me does not check at all the box of integrating and living RI in the next framework program. I hope that wasn't too long. Let me look at the clock. Okay, well we started late. So I suppose that was just about on time. I would then like to hand over to you. We wanted to look for an RI culture in Horizon Europe. I could either stop sharing and you start sharing yours or I could click for you, whatever you want. Okay, well, why don't I share some of the things you're doing. Okay, give me a second. I think I've stopped sharing. Oops. Yeah. So, good Alex. It's nice to take us through the history and now I will try to say something about where I, what I perceive as the current status on what has happened and to connect it to the culture building topic. You could ask whether, and I'm being a bit specific here. DGR and I have succeeded in building a culture for our in Horizon Europe. So, let's see. This is what I'm presenting now is the result of a lobby project funded by the Research Council in Norway. I'm not sure if they call it a lobby project, but it's a project that is supposed to support the implementation of topics or research fields or research approaches that are important for Norway in Horizon Europe. And the Research Council of Norway is very committed to RI and they want to support implementation of RI in in Horizon Europe. So, we are basically three main team members in this project. It's Alex and Siri Granumkarsson from the Norwegian Technical University and myself. We have our web page as well. You can have a look if you want. I'm trying to influence through while getting information, trying to keep updated on what's going on, try to talk with our National American committees. The ones that actually give national input to the Horizon Europe and also to work with program officers and people who write the draft texts and also applicants and research communities. So, let me get to the point. As Rene and Linda has explained already, I don't need to say much about that. There is a legal basis for Orion in Horizon Europe and that's great. And it makes it, it makes the argumentation a bit easier because we can refer to that. Horizon Europe shall do responsible research and innovation. So, in the current version of the strategic plan for Horizon Europe, the overall policy document outlining the program. It's not as visible as the legal basis might say, but it's still quite, I think, I agree with Rene and Linda that a lot of the perspectives are there. But they can say RRI more. So, they say like that the document presents a range of horizontal considerations related to areas for international cooperation and key specific issues. Gender, social science, humanities integration, key enabling technologies, ethics of the science and social innovation. And I just wonder why they can, why couldn't they say RRI? It would fit in well, but it's not in there. Also in the overall strategic plan, there is, well, there are kind of different strategic orientations and one of the strategic orientations for the strategic plan is creating a more resilient, inclusive and democratic European society, prepared and responsive to threats and disasters, addressing inequalities and providing high quality healthcare and empowering all citizens to act in the green and digital transition. And I think it would be, this kind of gives a mandate for including RRI in as a part of this point D, but also to include it specifically in cluster two, which is the cluster on, too many documents here, the cluster on cultural creativity and inclusive society. So what we see is that there is mention of RRI in the draft documents now, but as far as I can see, there are no mentions of research on RRI. So RRI seen as kind of a support approach, but it should as well, and also according to the pathway declaration, there must be some sort of ability to also conduct research on RRI. Otherwise, we won't have kind of the best possible research based support for RRI in the rise of Europe. And that should be in the cluster two perhaps. So just to give an example or a picture of how Horizon Europe looks. This is overall structure. And RRI, the home of RRI is now in widening and strengthening. So that's kind of cross cutting the pillars. Of course, the money is in the pillars. And the missions are in pillar two alongside the clusters. So widening and strengthening is the home for making sure that the whole of Europe is engaged in research and innovation of high quality and also for reforming and enhancing so strengthening the European research system in different ways. And I'm sure that they will correct me if I'm saying something wrong afterwards. So widening and strengthening is kind of where you will find most of RRI together with open science and ethics. And it says that again, the visibility of RRI is not very high. The draft document for widening and strengthening says that it should empower European, Europe's citizens as scientific knowledge is broadly diffused. Forging critical thinking, social and democratic engagement, more inclusive democratic societies, empowering citizens. And again, why couldn't they just mention RRI? I think also a problem with RRI, having RRI and widening and strengthening is that from my experience there is a lot of focus on the widening countries. So how to get, you know, eastern, many of them are eastern countries to engage more in research. And the cross cutting issues are not equal, there's not equal amount of attention to these. So that's a pros and cons of having RRI in widening and strengthening. But as I said, there is, as far as I can see, not really research actions at all on RRI and widening and strengthening, not so far as at least. But RRI is in there and they have its section two called an open inclusion in responsible research and innovation system, which is great. There's a lot of focus on open science, open access, gender, citizen science, science communication ethics, so it's a well-known case. But there is also mention of RRI, their coordination support actions. So, from the very excellent interview in the morning, we heard a lot about RRI and open science. And I would like to point out that I'm not sure who in the European Commission takes a few, but at least when we have called for more RRI in Horizon Europe, an answer from the Commission has been to connected to ethics. So I think that's also something I'd like to hear Renee's views on. So that RRI is not really taken care of by citizen science or open science, but by ethics and integrity. So here's a quote. RRI has been operational that defined as including several thematic keys, ethics being one of them. Responsibility in design, implementation and communication of research is indeed a key in the research ethics and integrity policy objectives. And is covered by the following four principles of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, a reference document in Horizon Europe regulation. And they quote these four principles, reliability, honesty, respect for colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and environment, and finally accountability for the research from idea to publication for its management and organization for training, supervision, mentoring and impacts. And they say these values essentially based on the protection of the fundamental rights and the respect for the environment, frame the responsible and ethical conduct of research. So the impression I get is that RRI is now taken care of by research ethics. And there is more about research ethics also in the draft for the strategic plan of Horizon Europe, as mentioned under the section specific issues. And one of the specific issues that will be taken into account is ethics and integrity. And they formulate it in a wider way than what we have usually seen the last years with regard to ethics and integrity. So it's not only anymore about research internal norms, but including norms related to practice and impact of research. So in a sense, I would agree that when they expand the ethics research ethics concept in this way it gets closer to RRI. And I think that in order to make sure that the European Commission still communicates that RRI is important, they could simply say ethics and responsibility, but this is not done. I think it's interesting and we should discuss whether we believe that an extended research ethics approach would cover a lot of the concerns we have about RRI. Another thing about this specific part of the draft strategic plan is that it doesn't really say how these specific issues will be taken into account, but it doesn't mean to take something into account. Will it be up to each program line? How it will be implemented? How will it be monitored, evaluated and followed up? So that's an important point. And then I would just like to say a little bit about the European Innovation Council. I mentioned it as a question in the chat. And when I answered very kindly, it is quite, I mean, if you read the document, it's all about groundbreaking radical research that is going to have this dramatic impact on our societies. That's what they want, high risk research, potentially kind of turning around everything in order to, well, I suppose solve or solve problems. But there's hardly any mention that it doesn't only have to be high, they can't only be high risk, it has to be a responsible risk. So all of these change radical groundbreaking changes are supposed to happen without any of the, what we're used to with, you know, societal engagement and responsibility and all of that. So for me, it was like going back 20 years when I read it. There's hardly anything about social engagement. There's engagement with stakeholders like industry. When with the kind of ambitions that European Innovation Council has society must be involved. And when you read there's, there are some kind of specific challenges that they call pathfinder challenges that which are supposed to kind of guide at least some of the research. And they are, they seem to be technology push and not defined by identified societal needs. And these challenges shouldn't be identified in the broad inclusive process. And in addition, several of the ones that are mentioned so far are highly ethical sensitive. For instance, self developing in the where artificial systems engineered living materials. For me, it's very strange that they don't address the need for handling this in a respectful approach. So I think this is the most kind of worrying part. So, I think that I'm going to, I'm very rude now. I'm going to do kind of an assessment. I think, yes, I mean, there's so much good work done in Horizon Europe, also by people who've been here today. It's great that's in the overall objectives. There is inclusion in widening and strengthening and we fear that there wouldn't be any and there is some. It is mostly translated into open science and ethics. The missions, I would agree, reflect the RIS spirit, but it's not only about our eyes, maybe just as much as about the sustainable development goals. I would agree that there is overall more involvement of citizens more into disconnection stronger requirements of openness, many places in the rising. So I think that in a way it's a success. I think, with regard to the innovation people, the European Innovation Council. Yeah, it's so far a failure. And I think that we have to take part of the blame. What could we have done to build a better understanding of our own innovation community and we as an RIS community haven't done that. So I think there is still time because the processes are not completely closed. If you get in touch with me, I can have some more information about how you can engage and we basically need everyone to engage. Also, like it was said earlier. So, but I would like to finish by a few very concrete questions also based on the interview earlier today. Because I think that you said that we would need to influence the applicants to European Innovation Council, but and that's fine and sense. But I think there should always also be a way to get in touch and try to influence the staff actually making writing the texts because applicants will do what is required in the text. So for me, it would be also very urgent to get in touch with the stuff. I'm not sure how we can influence the applicants. I don't see what I can do to do it except only kind of open invitations. And the same problem I have with the missions. I understand that we have a great opportunity and a window opportunity for the missions now, but how to reach them, how to influence them. I think one, like you or linen was saying that it was a bit worried that we didn't have enough capacity for all of this that was going to happen in Horizon Europe. And one of the things we wanted in the pathway declaration was our I hub, and it's not there. And I really hope it's possible somehow to get a tender for an RI hub in widening your strength. But I don't know how to achieve that. And finally, it is a problem. I think that there is so far no possibility to do research on our eye as far as I can see. So I hope I didn't provoke too much, but I hope that this was at least enough for. Thank you. Thank you. I think provocation was our job. That's that's that was the job description this morning. And I can only underlining and I think that's also where both of us have tried to emphasize that it needs it would need conditional specification of those dimensions of responsibility in the work programs be the EIC, or in Europe because otherwise it remains an abstract paradigm or policy prescription. So how is it actually broken down into specific requirements that also the applicants understand and where the best of resource base that they can touch on. Okay, then that means I need this module or that framework. So that would be the one dimension. I think the other one, Ellen, that you just touched upon was, where's the actual practical support for RPOs and also RFOs by the RI community. Where's the mechanism is it is this hub, for example, that we envisage envisage. What's the interface, how can we make sure that there is a knowledge transfer from all of the things that we have apparently learned from swaths into programs. We have one question in the chat. I was wondering whether we should directly jump to that one. We can probably, Ellen, if you can stop sharing so that we can see. Great. Here we are. I have Lucy Patricia. Okay. So I cannot see it. Right. Oh, okay. It's only to me private. I hope I'm allowed to read it. But stop me in the next five seconds. Fair enough that was informed consent. The scientist must be smart to drive decision making on policies. Someone just interrupt me. Okay. The scientist is smart to drive decision making and policy. The hub, probably the one that we just talked about. And meet the expert strategies are crucial. How will these. Someone's trying to say something. I'll stop talking for a minute. Did anyone want to say something. Okay. So Lucy, I just read out your question if you're still with us. Yeah, she's here. She's here. Would you, would you mind? Would you mind expanding a bit from that point? Let's see. I can see Lucy on the participant. I don't know. Okay. Here she is. Hi, Lucy. You have come with your microphone. Okay. Okay. These are great insights that I've captured from this transit, the transaction. And it involves governance. It involves power. And now here is the scientist who has not been equipped with the tools or the methodologies to be able to convince or influence. So that like in Africa, be able to establish the foundations. And whereby we are going to project towards responsible research and innovation. Because like our foundations are vulnerable. I tell you when I was listening to all these, I was, I was looking at the foundations, our educational foundations from primary school. The universities are highly compromised. The kind of research that we are doing is actually based on output and not really the outcome. And it has really triggered a lot of brainstorming in my mind. I really want to know, so how can the scientists be able to get smart in terms of convincing, in terms of influencing and driving even decision making? Because I think we have been, we have been shy in that line as scientists. Am I clear now? Even clearer than before. Thank you very much for the question. Please first, do you want to start? No, I think that was mainly a question for you, Alexa. Okay, now I'm happy to start. I think it's very much a policy question and maybe not so much a capacity building question in the scientific community. Of course, if you had the right tools and arguments and so on. And again, for example, our colleague from the National Research Foundation, South Africa, with us at the moment, they were part of the project I mentioned in the beginning. So there are frameworks, there are tools, there are processes, there are ways to go about this also to approach your own executive board, for example, or to approach a regional research council or something. So there are ways to do this. But in the end, I think it is just as much a top down question as it is a bottom up change movement. So you want to change things, I suppose if I understand you correctly, bottom up, whereas the challenge, also as I have experienced it in Africa, or on the African continent to be at least a bit more precise was just as much a policy implementation question as it was a research drive question from the scientific community. So the first question to me would be, are the funding bodies are the research policy the science policymakers in their mindset convinced that this is a thing that this is something that we should be doing. And I would love to see it because I had the privilege to experience firsthand the different parts of the African continent and the pressures that are on the social systems which are, if we're honest, much, much higher than there are in the privileged global north. So you experience pressures, which, for example, also applied science could immediately tackle when it comes to water management when it comes to agricultural research and so on. So I think the pressures are there to drive our eye actually much, much stronger than it's probably possible in the more, let's say lean back independent cultures of science as we experiencing them in Europe, and many of the European countries at least. So I would see that as an opportunity, as long as policymakers are aware of that and are also willing to drive that change from a political point of view. I'm not sure if that answer helps because you were explicitly asking for capacity building, I think, but I would wonder whether the one thing comes first. Does anyone want to add to that. What does agree. If I may ask another question to the audience. I'm curious about how people react to translating our eye into broader research ethics. So, so now we have kind of three strands of furthering our eye in horizon Europe so it's about open science. Cooperation and also research ethics. If I can ask Renee, would you say that there is a common understanding in the DG research and innovation about responsibility or how what is the dialogue internal dialogue. We have run here. Renee wants to run first that that's okay by me. He hasn't muted his mic so many. Yeah. No, I had the feeling that the question was addressed to me so sorry if I take the floor it's. So, I'm not sure if if there is a shared diagnosis in DG research, you know this. You know the. I think in your prey. I mean, maybe I should come back to your presentation elementary. I think what you presented at the end of your conclusions on on RRI. You, you know, I think it's a fair representation of the reality is as far as I can see so it is not. I think you did. They're a good job. That's that's a fair representation. You know, what differentiates us is not. I think what's good to do, but you know, more from what I do from my side and what you can do from your side. Of course, I look to things like the missions or the Green Deal, for example, I mentioned this in the interview, but I think it was just a few days ago. I was on the call for one billion euro. I mean, I don't this is this is this is a fact as one billion euro for a Green Deal research. And the last part also goes to citizen engagement and knowledge strengths. It's a great opportunity for the RRI community to get mobilized and join in there. Because, you know, this is maybe where we may have a slight disagreement of opinion. I'm not sure I actually I even tested out. But I think the weakness of swaths was actually that, as I said in the interview, we did not deliver on outcomes. And, you know, my interest is really to make innovation directional. And the Green Deal is an example of that, of course. And these things which have been donated with such amounts of money and such a scale as never practiced before. If this not is populated with the RRI community would be a shame. And so this is your opportunity. And this is why the quality of these things always depend on actors and who will participate and who will win the call. And you can have also better RRI project. You know, you know these things. So as a programmer, you cannot do more than setting the conditions and hope for the best in terms of who will show up and who will win the cash. And now there is so much money available. People always complain there is too little. There is so much available. You know, and there is something where we can deliver. So this also answers a little bit of question, you know, why there is not so much money for doing reflection on RRI. I mean, I must say that there were quite a lot of projects. I mean, swaths, even if it was a small program, had a lot of projects. They all started from scratch trying to redefine what responsible research and innovation is. And I personally didn't find it very productive. So that element. So if you ask me, you know, personally, I don't feel the need to further reflect on what RRI is. My need is more on how to deliver on, and especially of course, socio-politically on this transition to an innovation paradigm, which makes the ethics will then come automatically in. So I think you work a little bit more, you look to concrete ethical examples and you look to the cause of conducts and so on. I will not say that these are not important. They are, of course, important, but they themselves are the result of so long. I mean, the European Court of Conduct, which is reflected in the middle and in the grand agreements, is the result of the years long process from academia and things and they quarrel with each other. In the end, this is what they get and it's from our perspective probably insufficient, but this is how far it can get. So I'm more like, you know, in Holland, they say, in Holland, they say you have to roll with the pedals you have. So these are the pedals and so we have to exploit them. And with open science, we go beyond these research ethics goal because I think a lot of issues around the reproducibility of data, for example, and reliability of scientific information should be part of research ethics, which is not in there, but which we will try to address with open science. So there is still some work there to do. So with some capacities, there will be some research on error I do. And I also agree actually, you know, you have raised this repetitively the need for such an hub. And I think this is actually a really good idea. And I hope some way or another we will be able to do that, the sooner the better, of course. But of course there we have to find this on us about the money and see how far we can get. But it is on our radar. And so, yeah, sorry to talk too long again. Ron, maybe you would like to add something. Yes, indeed. As usual has raised so many other additional points that it's difficult to know where to enter this. I have to apologize. I couldn't hear the first session this morning and I had other appointments yesterday. So, if what I want to say has been covered, I apologize in advance, but I'm sure these are issues that need to be readdressed. In terms of what Alex and the new Marie said, and also Lucy's point. It seems to me that there are some additional concerns that we have to have in mind. René's most important point was the paradigm is more important than the abstract concept. I have to admit that in order to ensure the project that I'm involved with, primarily at the moment progress, we wrote RRI into the project. The project's about research ethics and integrity. But if we hadn't written RRI into it, I don't doubt we would have got the brilliant score that we did get from the evaluator. So there are some lessons that the culture has, to some extent, been incorporated. However, what concerns me more than anything else is, for want of a better term, and this is with respect to all of your work and the cluster projects involved, it's RRI evangelism. If it becomes a missionary and loses sight of the elements of the concept, then it's going to be awfully hard to achieve. And one of the dangers is that it becomes tokenist. You know, from my experience in research, after QA often end up with people, you know, aligning to the OVADO convention, declaring that they support Helsinki, or that they align with human rights. You know, what does it mean unless you look at the context in which those things are actually practiced in the field. This is where Lucy's point is relevant, because as you move between different contexts, you know, you see different things being possible. So I'd be less concerned, let's say, than Alan Marie, about actually having the name RRI in Horizon Europe, as long as the elements to what you see to be important in RRI, the lessons that have been learned, and elements of the culture that need to be developed. If they are in Horizon Europe, then let's not be precious about the term. There's an American proposals and applications. They all mention RCR, but I don't know if they really went in the field, in the lab, or wherever, are actually practicing RCR. It's only what they tell me, or what gets disclosed in, you know, in the event and the outcomes. And the other, the final point that I want to make about this is that we've been doing some interviews. You know, my project ProRes is about actually trying to get policymakers to look at the nature of the evidence that they use, not just used ideologically biased evidence, but look at ethically produced and ethically generated evidence, which essentially should be what RRI has achieved. They should look at that, and that's the evidence they should use for making their policies. Now they don't do that. In some countries, they do it less than in others. And in some places, it's evident that they don't look at the real evidence that, you know, they just use the evidence that supports their particular ideological view. So that's my concern. How do you make sure that, you know, the true elements of the culture, all the things that we are all seeking, I know, there's no real difference if you look at the term, you know, the underlying elements within the paradigm. And that we're actually after people being honest, being transparent, behaving responsibly. All of these things make very different than, you know, difficult to actually define and conceptualize terms. And the danger is that if you just simply promote a particular term like RRI, it gets siloed. It gets getter-wiseed. It becomes easy for people to say, Oh, RRI was a fashion. There's nothing else now. Now, you know, that is a real danger, I think. You lose sight of what you're really after when you're trying to achieve it. And the final thing I'd say, when we actually interviewed, we've interviewed researchers, we've introduced research funders, we've interviewed policy makers and policy advisors, and about 50% of them, when we asked the question, do you know what RRI is? We understand it. 50% of them said no, never heard of it. That's an interesting response. We then explained what it was and they said, Well, that's obvious, isn't it? We should be doing that, shouldn't we? And then the others who knew about it had a range of different kind of interpretations of what RRI actually meant to them and just how achievable it was. And again, that's where I saw most of the tokenism. Oh yes, I know what it's about. We do that. So, you know, what I'm doing here is what the Commission really loves and that's disruption, right? They love disruptive technologies, and we need to talk about interoperability. In other words, how across all the cluster of RRI projects, research integrity, research ethics projects, what are the common elements that we can promote via Horizon Europe? That's the more important thing than, if you like, the missionary label. I hope I've not offended anybody. Well, there will be so many things to do, but the session is more or less over, so I gave a quick answer from Helen Marie to Helen Marie and Alex. And the very last question if we have some other. Okay. Well, thank you, Ron. I think there is some value in the concept as well because I think that a lot of organizations are out there trying to RRI and if they see that it's gone, they might, you know, get confused or stop doing it or whatever. Feel that it wasn't worth it. So I think there is a value in it. And I think that it's a value in it also because other concepts that can be used. There's often reduced in a way that RRI is supposed not to be reduced because it is supposed to be this integrated more holistic. So I think I'm afraid that that will disappear. But otherwise, I mean, yeah, it's a discussion. So I think, I think it was maybe Renee and Lyndon has said that you have to see different concepts or different instruments on the way to to responsibility and then that and I would agree with that. Alex. Yeah, I mean in general, it being a fashion doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing if you want. Looking at the guitars behind you, you know, there is certain trends in music and if you're playing the right music, the right tune at the right time that can be a really good opportunity, but I see, I totally agree that I see the risk for, yeah, the risk, the risk for tokenistic understandings of it and it becoming a checkbox activity and I think actually to be quite honest this is already happening while we speak. The question what to do and why to do it, which is that policy philosophical ethical discourse that we've not had for I think way too long leaves the question open to me how to do it. And there are a lot of answers that our community has delivered and that's even outside of the swaths bubble other communities have delivered also beyond the you indeed from in the US and also in Africa and other countries, where it's very, but that to me, and that's what what Elmer emphasized earlier, it must be written into the work programs. If you leave it vaguely and abstractly in there, then people don't really know what's expected and how they're supposed to do. The first element of the second one. It must also be facilitated and fostered with very tangible pragmatically practical support mechanisms talking of the hub and capacity building for the mechanical engineers and the synthetic biotechnicians and whatever. Yeah, people who have maybe as you said not even heard of the concept, but even if they have they don't know how to do it. How do you, how do you co create with civil society organizations upstream. Well, let's have a guess that's Google it. No, there are there are tried tried and tested ways to do it. And that knowledge transfer needs to happen more in a more institutionalized way than I think it's being foreseen at the moment and if we don't do that we run exactly the risk of what run is just erased. It becomes tokenistic there's a risk of it becoming a checkbox activity and that we might lose more than we have gained in the last few years. So I'm actually quite, quite concerned to be honest. Okay, thanks Alex as well. Well, if we don't have any other question it seems that well the chat is like free. I'd like to thank you so much for being here in this session. And just a quick, like, spot pathways sharing the screen in like 10 minutes, or maybe less than 10 minutes we will have this interactive sessions. Well, we will present our guidelines for governance and we will try to have some like interactions with the audience, especially in terms of how to mainstream how to write the European research area. And now we can move as we started saying from the first day from a concept of our right which is beautiful and romantic some auto one which is useful so how can we really, we can really invest on the usefulness of this concept so that and this is linked to what we were saying, it could become really an operational concept for our program and now it could become useful also in Green Deal and all the other initiatives that you write in Europe is launching. Thanks again. Thanks. And see you soon. And thanks to everyone for participating. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. So the link for the next session is in the shot and is the correct one. Okay, that will be lost. Just copy paste and then you can access the session and we will start on time. Thank you. Bye. Bye bye.