 So hello, good morning. So I can assure that my communication skills in Spanish are much better than in English, but I hope it shouldn't be a problem. So first of all, I want to introduce where I'm working. I work in this study center on science, communication, and society. Our center belongs to the Department of Experimental Science. But before to go to the Experimental Science Department, we were in the communication department. So our aim is to bring closer together science and society. And in order to reach this objective, we promote scientific culture among the citizens. And also we work for a better alignment between the research and development and innovation with the society's needs and values. So you can see that it's very, very related with the concept of responsible research and innovation that we will talk after. In order to reach these objectives, we make some kind of activities, like research and teaching, and also organize public engagement activities. And this is because we have this large experience for more than 20 years in the science, communication, and public engagement activities. This is the publicitary part of my presentation. And now that it's finished, my aim on this talk is, I have two aims, two objectives. First of all, to convince you that science communication is good for you and to incorporate public engagement practices and to incorporate the idea of reflection about the impact of the research or your field. It's important, but not only in terms of impact in science. It's also the impact in society. I try to convince you that it's good for you and for your organizations. And the second objective of this talk is to also convince you that if you are applying for a Marikori action, it's good for you to have to integrate this kind of concepts because they could add value to your proposal and they could represent the difference between to get or not to get this funding. So why is important science communication? In these days that we have, we heard about deniers of climate change, deniers of vaccination, or any viral cause of AIDS, for instance. It's important for the scientific community to go outside and talk with the public. And because many of these groups of society are entering in the government, for instance, in the Trump government, the group that is in charge of decisions about vaccines is led by a person that is against vaccination. And climate change from human origin has this group of deniers. So for the people that is working in research, it's important to go outside and to go outside our comfort zone that normally we are. Journalists like Nature or Science has reflected this necessity. And even in Nature, they have declared that 2017 is the year of public engagement. Science go a little bit more. And they say that a responsible researcher not only have to talk with the public, that they have to also listen to the public, because it's not just to convince them that we have the truth, but also to hear why they can't have other opinions that are not ours. So we can't hear and try to incorporate their opinions or to convince them if we're necessary. So this necessity of science communication and public engagement and to go beyond our comfort zone is a reality, and it's a reversible reality for us. Even in the career of a scientist, of a person that wants to work in a research center or a university, more is being considered disabilities and experiencing outreach activities and science communication. This is the, I've been recently involved in an assessment in a job position in one of the biggest universities in Denmark. And in the criteria to assess the candidates, of course they put the research impact factor and so on. And the teaching experience, but they also consider as a complementary skill these outreach activities, experience, and so on. And this is a trend that we will see in future years. And it is, even in the Spanish law of science, there is some sentence that are in this way, but probably will not see in the short term, but probably in the future. So it's important for the career of a researcher. It's important for the organization to get funding, of course, but also for the society. But when we talk about science communication, science communication is a very ambiguous word. It has many dimensions. If we consider that science communication and public engagement are like a ladder, we can go to the bottom. At the bottom, there is no information at all. So we cannot see this kind of politics of policy and communication now, because it's just for non-democratic countries, maybe. But now it's impossible to think in a project or in an institution that not communicate at all. So if we go a little bit up in this ladder, we go to the information in one direction. I communicate to the public through media, for instance, or through my website, or with exhibitions, talks, open days, something like this. That is just, I want to explain the things that I do, but I didn't hear what the people say that is necessary for them. And I don't integrate the needs of the society in my research. We go a little bit further in this ladder. And the social networks, like Twitter, or Facebook, or our blogs, if we have this kind of commentaries, it normally allows some kind of participation, a few, but some kind. So we are going up. There are other activities that we call the informal settings of public activities. And we also talk about MML, that it means Mutual Mobilization and Learning Activities. And these are activities created specifically to put publics or some kind of groups of stakeholders or publics with researchers at the same level. Everybody has their own expertise. I'm expert in this kind of research, or this field of research. But maybe a future user, a consumer, or I don't know, a parent is expert in their children's needs. And they have another experience, another knowledge. So the idea with these kinds of activities is in an informal way to receive, to talk, and also to hear these needs and knowledge that they are part of the process. If we go a little bit up in the ladder, we go to more formalized ways of public participation, like, I don't know, citizens panels. The referendum is the biggest, the universal way of consult people if they are against or pro question, for instance. These are more formalized. Normally, we need a government organization to leader these kind of activities. And in these kind of practices, it is supposed that the opinion of people is integrated in a policy or in a governance decision. A little bit upper, we have some kind of experimental activities like citizen science, community-based research, and science shops. These kind of activities cannot be applied to each project or field of science. But they can in some cases. For instance, citizen science is these activities that allows citizens to gather data for the research. They have been some examples of these activities. So we see that there are these ladder of science communication. And if you are applying for this Marie Curie action, maybe a good idea could be in the communication plan or in the training for these scientists to train not only in oral communication skills, body language, or how to talk with the public, how to make a poster, how to write a paper, a part of that that is also important. Maybe you can also include some kind of these bidirectional activities or more public engagement activities. Because these are in line with what is being talked in many places. This project is a European project engaged 2020. It has a kind of toolkit of different activities. And you put what are your needs. And they say, well, for your needs, it's better to have a science cafe or it's better to have, I don't know, a science date, like an speed date, but with scientists, for instance. And it's very useful because it has some kind of definition of what these activities are. It is very useful to prepare some projects. As you can see, when we talk about, we are not talking just of science communication. We are talking about public engagement. And public engagement is very, very, very related with another concept that we have here in the presentation of Joseph. Probably most of you have heard about RRI, Responsible Research and Innovation. So it doesn't mean that researchers are not responsible now, but it means that we want them or us to be more responsible. There are different definitions about RRI because it's a new concept. And as a new concept, there is an ongoing definition. The first one is the definition from the engineers and physics science and research council from the UK. And they use the word socially decidable. So research should be socially decidable. That's important because this word, decidability, is always in the definitions about RRI. And the European Commission in the definition in 2012, they say that RRI means that societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, the needs, and the expectations of European society. Needs, values, and expectations. If we see, when in the concept of grand challenges, we were talking about needs. We are, we chart the big needs of society and they define the grand challenges that you know very well. But we are talking about another concept that are values and expectations. Expectation means that what is the society want? They want, I don't know. As a citizen, do you want to be more intelligent? You want to live longer? You want to live in a rural society? I don't know. These are the expectations. Maybe they are not the needs or challenges in the idea of easy poses some years ago. So in the other concept, we are considering needs, but also expectations. And the third concept is the concept of values and what are our values? They are shared values in our society and we try to provide some skills to incorporate also these values. How we make research, how we use resources in research, how we organize our team in women and men or in other inclusive aspects. So the origin of the concept of RRI came from different fields of research and practice like technology assessment. Those of you that are working in technology knows that many companies and many projects incorporate this technology assessment in the way that you are looking for the future impact of this technology in a visionary scenario and you try to think what impact will have this technology. So this is part of the conception of RRI. Public engagement, of course, because in RRI we think that decisions or the process is responsibility for all groups or all groups of stakeholders. ELSA means ethical, legal and societal aspects research, corporate social responsibility because it's very related and many other researchers. So as I said, the sustainability is not the same of acceptability, it's a little more. Until now, projects you have to show that your ethical considerations are in the line of acceptability. You are in the legal framework. You have considered the measurement of excellence in science in terms of bibliometrical, bibliometrics like impact factor and so on and number of citations. But when we talk about RRI, we are talking about other shared values and we consider that we can go better and we can go beyond the mandatory. And then we can enter some kind of reflection like sustainability of the research, gender equality, inclusiveness, open access because we consider that these are now some of these shared values. Of course we can put a lot of them. There are many things that we can put here and this is the problem of RRI that is very, very ambiguous. So some institutions have tried to have more practical definition and European Commission has its own. This is another aspect that we consider when we talk about RRI. RRI tools is a big, big, big project from the SWAFT program and they talk about open and transparent that is the case of open access and so on and to see if because it's the reflection always a reflection about what could be the future impact of my research that is important. For instance, we train young scientists in RRI and one of our main objectives is that these young people consider their own field of research not only in the short term but also in the long term and the summative effect of everybody that is in this field. It's difficult because sometimes we are talking about science fiction but we can include some kind of abilities to talk and for instance to incorporating multidisciplinary people, okay? Incorporating multidisciplinary team and so on. Okay, there are some more documents that I put in my presentation if you want to use our site in your proposal. And this is the project that we leader is creating teaching materials in RRI and it will be open when it finish in August of 2018. This is the definition of European Commission. It is very, very pragmatic. They talk about six key issues, public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance. Public engagement, this is the particular definition of European Commission. They talk about group of actors, all societal actors that could be future users for instance but also people that could be affected but the progression of that technology. They talk about the engagement of all these group of stakeholders, about participation and about to choose because at the end you have to choose one option or one other and you have to include, to incorporate this kind of opinions or everything. And the together like the responsibility. Gender, yourself have talked about just to remind that when we talk about gender we talk about two aspects. One is the incorporate the gender or sex dimension into our research in the object of our research. Try to think if this is different for women or this is different for men and if not you have to justify why not. This is one aspect and the other aspect has to be with the human capital. How is your team? Is your team partitary? I don't know if it is the word in English in terms of gender and why not? If you have a, I don't know if you organize any kind of activity or teaching activity, everything you have to consider also the human capital if it is in the line of European Commission. Okay, open access, I want to recommend you to go to this new emphasis for the European Commission in the open innovation, open science, open to the world that Commissioner Moedas is recently talking a lot about this three O's policy. And it's also, it's very related with RRI but this open society. And to finish, I just want to go to some parts of the proposal that I, personally I consider that you can put some emphasis when you are trying to explain that you are very good in science communication in public engagement, impact and RRI. This is one that is in the definition of excellence. This is the gender dimension, but also when you are trying to explain why your proposal is excellent, normally we are going to more very scientific definition of excellence like impact factor and bibliometrics. Try to also think in why is excellent in terms of if they are in line of needs and values and expectation of society. I think it's a good idea and it could also add some value because if you know there are now some movements that are thinking about the definition of excellence in science. And these movements want to incorporate the societal dimension of the excellence. They are also the quality and in this point, quality and appropriateness of the training. There is in the training activities, there are a lot of them. Like organization of scientific training dissemination events, communication outreach activities, training dedicated to gender issues. There are many of them are related with training in science communication. So if you go through this training, not just one way direction, but also this B direction or multi-dimensional training and try to go a little bit further for the conventional definition of communication. There is also a big part of the impact and these are, this is in the blue, you can go to a document that the European Commission is working on and they have, because now they want to stress a lot in the dissemination and communication part and exploitation of the research because many projects when finished, they are forgived. So the idea of commission is that in every project, we have to include a strong plan of communication, dissemination and exploitation. So if you go to this part, you will see the difference between dissemination and exploitation and communication. There is a little bit different and then you can go and there are a lot of examples and you can explain the activities. Okay, this is part of the same. So this was my objective. I hope I could convince at least some of you. Thank you. Thank you.