 you at this parallel session one of the third day of the final summit for real. And as you know, this third day is mainly of the future parties and the future destiny of every right. So we are speaking mainly of what will happen to every right and open science, both in political terms, but also in some terms, especially in the perspective of the shift from Horizon 2020 and Horizon U framework programs. This parallel section, this section turns around the contribution of Robert Brown that I thank you very much for being here, also on behalf of the other participant. Robert is a research and institute of the advanced studies in Vienna. He is a researcher with a background in philosophy and science technology studies and is presently involved in the new Horizon project, which is exactly right precisely focusing on how to promote the embedment of every right in the research and innovation system that is not only in the research institution, but also in enterprises and in the industry. Robert's presentation with every right has a cross-touching issue. And so I thank him again. And I give you, Robert, the floor. I suppose that you have the slides to share. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Luciano. Yes, this is mainly about New Horizon. I also greet everyone, especially my colleagues from the New Horizon projects, Stephanie and Ingeborg, who will also present during this session. So you'll see three presentations. I'll start, and then Stephanie will follow, and then Ingeborg presenting some of the findings. Very interesting. Will be last, but not least. And I suggest that we do 15 minutes presentation and then five minutes Q&A. And then at the end, we can hopefully have a meaningful discussion about the future of ROI as Luciano has suggested. So I will now share my screen. I hope that you will see. And I'll talk about the drama of ROI, ups and downs of a funding policy. This is a snapshot of our results in New Horizon. This is the content. Basically, our question is, why did ROI not emerge and constitute and continue as a strong funding instrument? And we'll use Sabatier's advocacy coalition approach and we'll contrast our right to another concept in research innovation excellence that does have a strong policy institutionalization, which is the ERC as you all know. We're on the macro level. The project obviously is much more than this. So we have Mezzo and micro level findings as well. But I, in this presentation, will stay on the macro level. I'll focus on the conceptual challenges and policy paradigm options. And our method in this project was a diagnosis and action research in social apps that we have done. Some of you may be aware of what we did. This is an overall research of age 2020. Here are the 18 program lines we established social apps and these social apps followed up and then investigated the possibility of mainstreaming ROI in Horizon Europe as Luciano said. One of the publications that already emerged from our project is a science publication, science magazine publication. And there our main argument was that responsibility or ROI in the EC policy discourse is more a normative political wish or position as opposed to a properly implemented policy in the European Commission. It's a pretty strong statement and we argue, I think, extensively, why is it so? As Luciano alluded to, ROI has been demoted to a cross cutting issue in Horizon Europe. I won't go into the definitional landscape, you all know, but this is clearly the motion from having an institutional home in swaths as a separate program line and also institutional grounding in the bureaucracy. So our main question was why did ROI not emerge and continue as influential funding instrument and implemented policy on proposal and evaluation levels despite of the two decades of addressing science-society interrelations with EC funding? And we will or I will look through four areas that we find interesting and where we're looking for the reason why this is the landscape. We argue that there is a semantic fragility of ROI's policy objective. We also argue that there is a financial fragility as funding instrument. There is a legal fragility of ROI as funding line and there is an institutional or bureaucratic fragility of the swaths unit as policy operationalization instrument. So here is an overview of the story. As you all know, it all started in the Seventh Framework Program, Science in Society 2007 and then continued in 2014 as inscribed in the Rome Declaration the six keys. And then in 2016 under Commissioner Moedas, the three O strategy open innovation, open science and open to the world emerged. What we call this history when you're looking at it is and this is why these terms were relevant. It was starting from public engagement, science, communication, gender to research ethics, science, education, open access and then the three O's that there is a definitional debate what ROI is. There is also a conflict as we all know between the academics and the policy people so there is a definitional problem with ROI. When we look at the funding instrument, we see a certain level of growth until age 2020. It started in FP6 with 88 million over to FP7 with 280 million and the last time around in Horizon 2020 it was almost 500 million. However, in Horizon Europe, while there is 400 million euros for what's called reforming and enhancing the European research innovation system, this is allocated across 14 action lines, none of which specifically target ROI as an overarching policy instrument. So advocates of ROI argue that actually with swaps as an independent program line, ROI disappeared as a funding instrument. There are no funding swaps like activities in widening and enhancing the European research arena and ROI is only marginally mentioned in Horizon Europe legal texts. This means that there is a legal framing problem. ROI as an overarching policy instrument did not make it into the legally binding documents that form the legal basis of Horizon Europe. So there is a legal framing problem. And then as I have already alluded to there is a bureaucracy issue. Verocracy is obviously here used as a term to operationalize policy. And while in 2014 a separate swaps unit was established with two subunits gender and ROI and ethics and open access have been addressed in separate unit, there happened throughout the years a continuous reduction of the staff until in 2019. Unfortunately, the swaps unit was dissolved and an open science which is of a different policy kind was established. So there is a bureaucracy issue as well. And all of these come together asking the question why wasn't there a strong advocacy coalition that actually made ROI happen in the European research and innovation landscape? Advocacy coalition as an idea, as a theory originates as you all know from Sabatir. And it means that there are a variety of positions held by people elected in agency officials who share a particular belief system and who show a non-trivial degree of coordinated action over time. So the positions, belief system and coordinated activity over time are key issues. Someone not familiar with the concept might ask why are beliefs important? Beliefs on the one hand are important because that's how ideals translate into policy action. There are core beliefs, there is something that leads to a policy core and then there are secondary aspects of this belief that take action, policy action to the implementation of policy that we see lacking. And our argument is that the three problems the definition debate, the legal framing debate and the property debate all prohibited such a unified actor coalition to emerge. Actually, there were three coalitions that were struggling around the concept of ROI. As you see, one of the actor coalitions or advocacy coalitions was a pro-RI coalition actually already made up of two kinds, the pragmatists and the idealists. There was another who said that actually there is de facto ROI. So there is no strong need for a dedicated policy. And obviously there were the ROI critics and all the actors who were unaware of ROI. So there was a pro-RI group, the core value or belief was we need ROI to make our research innovation better. There was the de facto group who said that our ROI is already done, no additional policies needed. And then there were the excellent science people who thought that science should be excellent and excellent only and the technology push and the research ethics people who said that while technology push complemented with ethical awareness is good enough on the research and innovation landscape, there is no need to have ROI included as policy. And as you see from a resources perspective, the two groups who were pro-RI were the weakest. The de facto group was pretty strong but the strongest obviously were the ROI critics and the actors who were unaware that ROI even exists. Then comes the problems and the problems as I alluded to were of fragility. And the reason why we believe that such fragility emerged was A, our lack of ability to explain the benefit but most importantly the rationale of ROI. We didn't have unified and strong group of policy brokers who could promote the embedding of ROI in EC funding and we had a very limited access to policy forums although we did try but we did have an extremely limited access. We also were facing strong opposition from critics of ROI and there were competing challenges from arriving from established concepts like research ethics or the gender group, et cetera. So we want to compare because you would think that this is the normal way of affairs and such fragilities should be overcome easily and then a policy instrument will prevail. But we have a good example and this is the ERC where there was semantic stability, financial stability, legal stability and institutional stability. The establishment of the ERC, Excellent Science, was an outcome of a successful political campaign and an orchestrated political endeavor in which there was one unified and strong advocacy coalition built up of scientific and scholarly communities, European industries, politicians, members of state at council level, also convincing European Parliament and European Commission members. Here are some quotes, how this coalition was established from Helga Novotny, the former Austrian ERC president. As you see, strategy number one, which was key, no definitional problems, no definitional ambiguities, the message has to be conveyed loudly and clearly we need to influence the debate, speak with one voice, speak at the right time, speak at the right place and above all, repeat, repeat, repeat the message. So not only was it financially stable but it became institutionally stable because there was a framework, a funding framework but also it alluded to a self-governance and autonomy by scientists for scientists. This is also something that we couldn't establish. So the answer to the question we believe is that our advocates could not build an advocacy coalition with a unified message, a strong institutional embeddedness within DEC and find supporters within and in the orbit of our and our ecosystems. So what follows from this? Our conclusion is from the New Horizon project that to overcome these troubles, our advocates should develop a strong and unified policy message instead of focusing on definitions. Find key policy brokers in and outside of the EC and effectively connect our RRI to the current changes that are happening, sustainability, responsibility, mistrust in science, climate change, et cetera. And RRI then and then only can transform into an integral element of European research funding. Obviously, this is not only my work. Eric was the coordinator of New Horizon and other colleagues have been instrumental to putting all this together. It's also becoming a paper that is in the making and so to be published. Thank you very much. This was a quick overview and obviously I'm very happy to answer questions. And then when all the three presentations are done, we can come back to a dialogue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Robert for the presentation. I believe that's a very interesting policy analysis of the situation of RRI. And I believe that is very useful to be aware being aware of the fragility of RRI, absolutely. So it's a good starting point, I believe. So I don't know that there are questions. You can use both the chat system and you can raise your hand for posing questions. Otherwise we can continue. But I would like to know if there are questions or okay. Everything was very clear, apparently. No, no, no, it's interesting understanding. Yes, okay, Giovanni, you are the floor. Thanks, you are unmoved, perhaps we don't hear you. Okay, no. Yes, now it's good, okay. Thank you for the presentation. I was just curious to ask you, since in the previous session, it has been stressed that in Horizon Europe, RRI is not there independently, but it has sort of been incorporated in many other ways without being mentioned explicitly, but that could even be a sign that it is consolidated in a way. So what do you make of that claim? Do you think it is just over-optimistic and the reality is the bleak one that you have presented? I think this is the optimistic version. And unsurprisingly, I'll disagree and I'll disagree on two counts. One, there is this proverbial saying that don't show me your words, show me your budget. And I think this is why we use the ERC as an example that on the one hand, RRI requires further research of how to do it, how to embed it, to disseminate it. So both RIAs and CSAs that emerge from SWAFs are further required, otherwise they'll stay in asylum. On the other hand, and that's why we're talking about policy implementation, that to avoid RRI becoming a rhetorical exercise or a tick box exercise, you need appropriate policy instruments and this is not rocket science. Policy instruments are available. You can include RRI in the evaluation criteria. You can include RRI in proposal templates. You can include RRI in a number of policy ways as excellent science is. And we're not arguing against excellent science. What we are arguing obviously is that RRI is part of excellent science. Excellent science on the one hand has an independent funding vehicle, the ERC. We would require a similar one and also beyond the ERC, it is included as policy instrument in a number of ways. Their understanding of what excellent science means. And this is what we are arguing for. RRI will be implemented in research in innovation if it is implemented through policies. And as said, there are a number of policies available, none of which are used in the templates, none of which are used as criteria for or means to evaluate proposals. So this is the not so optimistic version. Okay, thank you very much. There are comment that is follow the money is a way for assessing the relevance of a policy. That is for understanding something. Couldn't agree more. Yeah, and I can also suggest that something similar happened with the gender issues in the past with the idea of mainstreaming gender. And often this mainstreaming gender has been interpreted as a diluting gender issues. That is the risk to dilute gender issue in diversity policies, diluting gender issues in many different streams of budget too. So at the end, gender issues disappeared. So sometimes it happens that for promoting something more, you arrive to have much less in your hands. So I don't know that there are other issues and questions from participants otherwise I could suggest to go on. I don't know, I will leave the floor to Stephanie or it's good, okay. So thanks, Stephanie Deimer to be here. And I give her the floor for the second presentation. Thanks. Okay, hello, hi. I guess you can hear me and I realize I cannot stop my video but maybe it's important that you can hear me, so. Hi, yes. So I think that connects actually very well but I'm going to present to Robert's presentation as he has taken us a bit from the past to the present, let's say, so we're taking you a bit from the present to the future. And I guess also break back to the present and I also realized that then in your voice, I guess we'll really talk about the present and in a particular great tool that we have developed in New Horizons. So I think you can also see my slides now. And you can see this is work. I'm presenting today together with my colleague, Merva Jornas, again, a first snapshot on ongoing work in New Horizons that we're doing. There is a couple of more people involved and that you'll see that on the last slide. Merva and I are based in Karlsruhe in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institute for systems and innovation research. The two of us are respond, let me see that this works. Here we go, all right. So the two of us are responsible for the social lab that deals with science, earth and full society in Horizon 2020, which you certainly know very well, obviously. So I don't have to say anything about the program line, of course. So, and Robert already has explained a bit the action research approach that New Horizon takes. So it won't also go more into detail of that. So with this presentation, what we'd like to do is we invite you to a discussion about the future of RRI. Or let's say we present a tool that might help to invite others to discuss about the future of RRI. So our social lab participants found it very important actually to prepare actions that feed the debate around the need for policies like RRI and how RRI should be or could be developed further. So there was this assumption that RRI is also tied to the time when it was invented. And perhaps this is now the time also to go on and think ahead and how RRI might develop further. So we wanted to do scenarios for the future of RRI. As we think this is a great tool actually to discuss in a more structured way about potential future options and developments. Actually, it's not at all possible to do scenarios about the future of RRI because as you can see, RRI has been designed as a specific policy intervention, reacting to policy problems with science society interactions at the time when it was designed. So as such, RRI is also dependent on the framework conditions that shape science society interactions. Just we have listed a few examples here. So the political system and other political variables obviously are important here, societal development systems. So if you want to explore the RRI actually, to shape the factor to another in order to arrive at an influence matrix, you can see that here on the slide. This matrix helps us to understand which of our factors are the least dependent from the others as such a quite independent factor is an ideal starting point of scenario pathways. That is the logic how we created the scenario pathways. So rather independent factors provide sort of switches. Where scenarios take fundamentally different pathways. You can see it a bit in the upper right corner of the slide where you take one factor as a beginning or starting factor and then this sort of helps you then compose different scenario pathways. And that is shaping this with quite strong outside borders. And we have a number three scenario called failed democracy. This is a populist with a tendency to an autocratic system scenario. And finally we have a technocratic and centralized strong state scenario which is called the benevolent green bureaucrats. So you can see these scenarios consider really drastic changes of politics and even political systems. And these go hand in hand of course with societal developments. So what does this mean for future science society interactions in those cases? Again, we find that this is quite drastic if we stay within the logic of our scenarios. So only in one case the case of the fortress Europe here we have a market-based free market and open kind of basic mechanism acting in society. So this is rather we would consider a rather incremental development from today whereas the other three developments that I'm going to show you are really sort of more transformative. So in the kingdom scenario we move to a more discursive society. In the failed democracy we move even to a scenario where we have a suppressed society or what is tokenistic societal involvement. And the benevolent green bureaucrats in a very extreme way might appear or develop into a collectivist society where we have really steered ways of science society interactions. And you see that these scenarios are not really meant to be desirable. So as I said, there shall be plausible and as such they all provide sort of small promising answers sometimes bigger promising answers perhaps to our covering crisis as well as critical development. So all scenarios have let's say good and bad sides and let's have a quick look maybe at the rather more positive sides that one could try to find in each of these scenarios. If you look at the kingdom of our eyes and now there's a high quality of life if you look at the photos Europe you really see that Europe is prosperous here in Korean technologies that is the logic here. In failed democracy in a populist world you could at least say that this is a world where we have social cohesion at least at the surface and this is sort of the main rationale for a populist regime. And in the benevolent when you look at scenario this is an approach where we really see sort of a rational and evidence informed sustainability transition taking place. We do unfortunately not have the time to really go deeper into the scenarios. We rather would like to show you a bit how we have started to work with these scenarios and in order to draw implications from them. For example, the scenarios alert us that we cannot help to really get rid of our current policy problems. And here's one example. So technological solutions might not be enough to fix challenges like the climate crisis. We see that today and we will see that in the future it might develop in the future again. For example, and this is very clear in the failed democracy scenario here. This problem clearly persists because there's just some sort of a talk fixing of really critical developments but not really sort of a more anticipatory approach to how to mitigate climate crisis and other challenges. And we have additional problems that might become urgent or that will become urgent in the future. Here's another example. We have three future scenarios that bear the risk to limit the freedom of science to an extent which is critical. And this is interesting because Robert really has spoken sort of about the opposite problem that we have today where the excellence paradigm is really strong and the advocacy for the freedom of science is a really, really strong advocacy. And then we see somehow this might flip around in the future to an extent which is also perhaps critical because the Kingdom of R.I. scenario might be a scenario where we have sort of excessive societal agenda setting which is just overstated. We have in the benevolent, kind of bureaucratic scenario really technocratic steering taking place which really might limit the freedom of researchers. And we have in the failed democracy the case of political control and even suppression of critical researchers. And there's another example for you. We see basically in each of the scenarios that there might be problems of inclusion. And if we stay within the logic of the different scenarios the problem of inclusion might become let's say a relevant policy problem in at least two of the scenarios. If you look in the Kingdom of R.I. scenario there you can find that this kind of really broad participatory approach really is not implemented in a good way because finally it ends up in elite participation that really sort of creates a bubble kind of thing and is not really representative for the whole society. And if you look at the Fortus Europe example in this kind of market-based logic where we have almost no state intervention we find eco-innovations which is interesting but they are only affordable to the rich. So this really creates some sort of two-class society, social disparity both in the EU but also in the relationship between the EU and the rest of the world. So this creates also more global poverty and migration because Europe really becomes a prosperous place to live. So the question is also what does this mean for the policies? What was the policy intervention similar to today's R.I. appearing in the future? And I guess you have a hunch right now after having heard this and this hunch is maybe, well, maybe rather not. And I guess this is what we see as well. First, if you look into the future as described in the Fortus Europe scenario here, state interventions are highly unlikely. So what we might see, of course, is voluntary engagement and a lot of different self. How do you say that? So you see a lot of volunteer engagement a lot of individual and private initiatives that address different kind of issues and that also might be very interesting in terms of sort of open innovation processes and this kind of stuff, but it is nothing sort of no policy, no state policy taking place here. And the other example is, or that we look now as the failed democracy type here, an R.I. type intervention in the logic that we discuss about it today, inclusive and democratic and so on can not at all be expected in such a scenario. So if we see citizen engagement here, that is tokenistic and just to make sure to provide lip service to the populist leader. But let us look a bit further into the other two scenarios. How are R.I. or any successor might look like? And you, if you look at the benevolent between bureaucrats first, this scenario considers a societal transformation where ultimately collective goals are prioritized. And this is really, I mean, they are prioritized over individual rights and interests. So the successor of R.I. in this scenario really will have to focus on gathering societal support for the central grounds of sustainability narrative. So that means that political communication, science communication will have to be really, really different from today and will have to be really important in such a scenario. And looking at the last scenario, we have seen that the kingdom of R.I. scenario basically bears in its scenario logic. There are a lot of the R.I. principles and instruments that we have today in place or that we would like to see to be in place. So this is in the logic already of the scenario but it leads to problems as I have shown you. So this extensive intermingling of science and society might really become problematic if it's presented as a one-size-fits-all approach which is the logic of the kingdom of R.I. scenario. So societal actors might be critical towards open or high-risk research and this is why they might a bit suppress it. So already for today we see that R.I. perhaps has the best chance to survive if it's really conceptualized in a more tailored way, really tied to specific kind of policy problems that you want to address and not just as a top-down sort of approach that is used for all instances and all cases. And let me say briefly, last example which we think is really, really interesting. We see that science education becomes in the kingdom scenario very important because you need to empower citizens to take part in R.I. in order to also to address this inclusion problem. And we also see that education in general but also science education are very, very important in the failed democracy and in the benevolent kri-neurocrat scenario because bills require ideological reforms of the education systems in order to ensure the social cohesion. So you see these scenarios are not at all meant to be desirable. They shall be plausible, I have said this already. So you might feel really that this is some, in a way this is really radical but also some people might say, well, this is a bit overstated but actually this is fine because this helps us to start a discussion about this. And what we find important is that the scenarios play with the current observations that political debates have become more ideological extreme in the past years where we see that fundamental democratic principles and institutions are called into question. So we really see that the debate about R.I. cannot just leave this out. We really have to consider that there is broad changes ahead of us and that this is really important when we talk about science society interactions and the kind of policy intervention then that is needed to address problems with science society interactions. So this has been a really, really quick write through the current status of our work. We are preparing a website with texts and graphics about the scenarios. We are writing a paper, it's in preparation. So I'm looking forward to your questions now and please just also get in touch afterwards if you feel there's anything to be discussed. Thank you. Thank you really for the contributions. Very interesting reasoning about future scenario of science society relationships. So we will have some critical boundaries for understanding and distinction for understanding possible future. So thank you really. We have not so much time, unfortunately because we have the next session starting at 11.45. So I don't know that there is answer, there is question or issue to be raised by the participants. I'm very happy if someone should ask something. Otherwise, if I understand correctly there is another contribution taking into account that we have some 10 minutes for the contribution because so we have some very short moment for discussion. I don't see anyone raising the hand or chatting something. Okay, so I'm very happy to, I'm very glad to give the floor to Ingeborg Mayer. Hi, hello. Yeah, hi. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you to be here also for you. Yeah. I will start sharing my screen. I cannot start my video so you will have to do it without me. Yeah, don't worry. Take into account the minutes. So yeah, thank you. Okay, can you see my screen now? Yes, yes, we are seeing. Oh, okay. That is in the mode. Yeah, I'll put it in the right mode now. Yes, okay. Yes, the third contribution from the New Horizon Project is about the societal readiness thinking tool which is more or less ready to go as I will show you. I hope a not too long presentation. It's the work of a lot of people working in New Horizon and I won't mention them all. But it started as a kind of a site pass because it was specifically asked for in the call to develop a societal readiness level that could complement a TRL that is as probably well known to everyone. And as you can see from the title, the level has disappeared and I will explain you why and I will also show what has come in the place for that level. Actually, after extensive discussions, we thought that the societal readiness level, as we then talked about, it should be helping to put our eye into practice and that it would be on how scientists and engineers could mature the societal readiness of their research project. So in order to arrive at that, we did a very extensive literature review. We came up with a set of questions instead of tick-boxing things, designed the preliminary tool in a design sprint exercise two day long and then we started to test the tool which we have done in the last year. And that will be, well, I will show you in a snapshot the results of these steps. So this was the literature review and we came up with the conceptual concepts of the RRI literature, both the EC strength and the academic concept popped out as the most relevant ones and that is where we build upon. So this is the TRL and this level thing is not something that we want to work. So how then can we translate the more operational and theoretical concepts and make it useful for research and innovation practices? So this is about from technology boost to science pool and to think about desirable futures and most notably to think about the social appropriateness of the work that you are doing and anticipate on that. So the question is, is that scalable and we decided that it was not because you can't compare reflexivity or gender or openness or transparency or ethics on these skills and then put a number to that. So to put that very shortly, that was the outcome of a long, long debate within the consortium and within the working group. So it is more about the willingness and the ability to consider all these societal implications and the idea was to help them with that through providing questions for a lot of different relevant topics related to RRI. And to that, we used the keys and the conditions. So the anticipate, reflect, include and respond for the RRI framework and the keys as the operational keys by defined by the commission. And in the tool, we also thought of the different phases and gates that research and innovation go through so it goes from research design and problem formulation up until launching and dissemination. And of course, this is not linear, but as you will see in the tool, it is of course a circular and feedback. There are many feedback loops. So the idea is that the more RRI influence you have in the beginning of a project, the more societal ready you will be when you enter the final stages. So just to give you an example, what do we have when we are thinking about these things? At the first gate, so at the first project stage, the question could be what are the potential barriers to making your data coding and publications open access? So that is something a question to reflect upon. And another example could be how will you address barriers to gender balance in research and leadership? So all these questions were then entered into a tool after long discussions on the design. So these were the design criteria. That we used for the tool. And I think the most important one is the entry point that we use because when a user enters this tool, it is not because they are interested in RRI, it is because they want to either write a proposal or think about something else. So there is a clear reason to enter and we try to define these reasons and define them as entry points. So this is I think the most important thing before I will shortly show you what it looks like. This is when you enter the thinking tool.eu tool. And it has an introduction that is starting here. Welcome to the societal readiness thinking tool. The main purpose of this tool is to help researchers think carefully about societal responsibilities in their own projects. In this video, we will show you how to use the SR thinking tool. You can enter the tool with or without registration. If you choose to register, you'll be able to retain your activities in the tools database and continue your work at a later point in time. When entering the tool, you'll be asked to select the current research phase of your project. The thinking tool differentiates four phases common to most research projects. Phase one, research design and problem formulation. Phase two, implementation, data collection and testing. Phase three, data analysis and evaluation. Phase four, launching and dissemination. After choosing an appropriate project phase, you'll be asked to select a relevant entry point or to choose the responsible research and innovation keys or conditions that you want to focus on in your work. The purpose of the entry point function is to tailor a list of questions that suit your motivations for using the tool. For instance, you can choose to reflect on how to address societal challenges and trends in your work. If you wish to restrict your focus to specific responsible research and innovation keys or conditions, you can take off relevant focus areas in the selection pane. You can learn more about responsible research and innovation by using the tool tips. They become visible when you hover the cursor over specific keys and conditions. In the circle located in the center of the screen, you'll be asked to respond to a list of questions that are tailored to your selection. You can respond to the questions by writing texts in the field at the center of the circle. To help you in answering each question, a pop-up window with information about relevant methods and resources can be accessed through a link right below this text box. The method section is nearly meant to serve as an inspiration when using the tool. The box on the right side of the screen helps you to keep track of the questions you have already answered. If you wish to continue onto another project phase, this function is available at the upper left side of the screen. By hovering the cursor over a particular gate, you can get information about what characterizes this phase of the research process. At the bottom right side of the screen, you can generate a PDF. If you find a question to be lacking, it is also possible to add your own questions. The PDF list to tailor-made questions and publishes the answers you have made. Thanks for listening. We hope that our thinking tool helps you to cultivate a forward-looking approach to responsibility in the research and innovation process of your project. That is what the tool looks like. It was launched last November 2019. At that time, it was discussed within several social labs to collect relevant feedback. I think one of the things that came out there is that a lot of people still want to have some sort of measurement. This level of discussion keeps on popping up. What we then did was starting a real research project with researchers and with research staff and using the tool to let them work through the tool. Researchers did thinking out loud sessions and the other ones with research staff were with focus groups. In that way, we collected a lot of feedback and perceptions about the tool. On the right bottom side, you see the funding agency. That is the fourth place where we would like to start the discussion. Actually, yesterday, I was approached by the Medical Research Council of the Netherlands to think about this tool because they were thinking about a society already in this level. I said to them, that is where we started three years ago. Please be welcome and jump on this bandwagon. Just feedback from stakeholders based on systematic analysis of responses. Due to the time, I won't go through all of this, but this is more or less in terms of expectations and aspects that were discussed and what we got out of it. Which means that there are things that can be adjusted. From all of this feedback analysis, we have three important policy recommendations. One for researchers to advise them on the urgency of the practical integration of our research. We think that this should be more than just mentioning it in goals and giving examples, but to let them go through the societal readiness thinking tool and refer them to that as well and make it something that is added in the annex and can be used. There are a lot of research staff feedback that said if we can use the PDF text directly into proposals or into evaluations, that would be great. There were other comments like it would be great if we could sit together and work in a group on this tool. There were mentions of whether this could be very useful for self-assessment to assess whether we have done and thought of all the things that are relevant. So the last advice is to policymakers to take part in the co-creation of the further development of the thinking tool. Then the last issues and next steps is so just designed for other use. We have brought the societal readiness thinking tool also into the SuperMori project and we are discussing it as a starting point for monitoring the territorial RRI projects. We are thinking about awareness and uptake and actually the policy brief that describes the tool will be launched very shortly and I hope that we can use that to encourage use in the context of Horizon Europe and then of course the critical issue is the sustainability of the tool and where it is located and to maintain that beyond the new Horizon project. So with that I would like to stop and open the discussion if there is still some time left. I hope that I kept the time. Thank you very much for your contribution. We have a very comprehensive view of the large kind of activities carried out under this project to be really useful. Unfortunately we have four minutes before stop because we have then moving to the other room for the plenary but if you have very short issues or very short questions to be applied in some seconds we have the societal readiness tool is interesting the need of inclusion of intersectionality aspect in the reflection question besides gender and also it's possible development for territorial area that is another issue often touched by the commission. Other very short comment or question? The intersectionality questions are included in the questions actually it's under the umbrella of gender and of course it is inside inclusiveness and diversity much broader. I don't want to discourage people to say something but if you can in very few seconds we still have three minutes. Luciano if I can say something coming back to the water of Brown said I'm very I agree with his analysis very interesting just few words for the Ararai coalition for the advocacy about Ararai. The first one is important adequate investment in order to bring Ararai in the new program of course. It's important to have adequate investment as Robert said it's important to connect Ararai with policies in my opinion it's also important to bring Ararai as much as possible outside the Ararai community and the final I think it's very important also to have on the side of European Commission people I mean officers able to handle the let's say Ararai contents because if we want to mainstream concretely and effectively Ararai across the new program and this capacity of European Commission to handle the contents of Ararai is not something that cannot taken for granted. Thank you I don't know that you want to reply something and then we have to close. Robert Very shortly I agree to build a successful advocacy coalition you need resources which politicians have you need policy instruments with which policy people have and you need supporters in legitimation which the Ararai community has so I agree we need to reach out we need to reach out to the research and innovation community we need to reach out to the policy people and we need to reach out first and foremost to politicians in the European Commission who can make all this happen. Okay thank you very much to Robert Ingeborg and Stephanie is very rich contribution now we will have the final session in the plenary theoretically in view to a plenary on governance perspective for responsive open science starting at 11.45 so we should move there to the other room. Thank you very much for the speakers and thank you