 Yeah, so thank you very much Helene. That was helpful to remind us all why we all did these studies. I'm Harold von Lenz, I'm Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Maastricht University and one of the researchers in this consortium. And the research I will report on today is starting from this very commonsensical idea that when you are concerned about responsible research and innovation at open science it probably matters what kind of sector you're working in or are concerned about and also the country you're working in. So things are different in different places and in different disciplines, different economic sectors, so let's have a look at that. So the key questions in the research I will report on is, our two-fold one is how can we see the different variations across sectors, national contexts and maybe also other factors that matter in terms of variation because responsible research innovation is not just one monolithic movement. It comes in various forms and with various questions with various ambitions. So let's have a look at that. It's very useful to know that before you start doing experiments and developing tools. So that's one thing. The other thing, second question is to provide a bit of a background. Can we understand these variations and what factors help in shaping the variations? So these are the two questions and in this research we build on some shared ground that is that we covered in the whole pit for MRI project, which is this. These are these five analytical interests that we are interested in the general trends and also the first webinar on the dynamics and science system was focusing on this. So we contribute to that as well. The question, what is happening in the different disciplinary and research sectors? Secondly, these barriers. So can we understand what withheld people from joining RRI or to discuss it and what kind of institutional opportunities are there to address it better? The driver. So how do these concerns come in play? How do they steer the developments and the discussions and what differences do we see there? Fourthly, the interests and values. So there are typically different values at play when you are discussing biotechnology or ICP. So let's have a look. What is at play there? And finally, so do we know of some good examples of where we have successful experiences that could be a model or a benchmark for other attempts? Okay, so that is a sort of general introduction why we do this and how we see it. So then I will focus now on the sectors that we feel were important to explore. So we decided that at the beginning of the project. The first sector is sustainable energy with and that's of course a very broad category. So we focused, if possible, on zero emission innovation in the built environment. So zero emission built houses. That is an attempt that is now going on in various places. So it's partly scientific research, but also sort of hands-on innovation. Secondly, material science, which is a bit more remote from actual innovations. It's more research oriented. Although, and we focused here on coatings. There you see also industrial activities on nano coatings and coatings that help to improve the performance of materials. The third sector, ICT, information communication technologies. And that is of course very visible in terms of big data. The fourth one probably very different is biotechnology. Again, a very broad category. So we focused here on stem cell research and personalized medicine. We did this in various countries. So not all countries focus on both. So then you have an option to have either of these two. And the last one, photonics, where we focused on glass biotechnology technologies and new light electronic chips. So the enhancement of also data communication, but also additional features and performance. So these are five very different sectors where you would expect differences in terms of open science and responsible research. So then how did we do this in this research? Actually, two steps. Step one is going to the literature. We are not the first one exploring this. There have been some thoughts, experiments, experiences. And so we looked for the promises in these sectors, the concerns, whether there are reports about societal engagement in these five sectors. And that was then ended in month six. Then we continued and to elaborate, deepen and check these findings in workshops in five countries. So we had researchers in these countries and they all developed their own workshops with the various sectors. And these five countries, you see them on the screen already, Italy, Portugal, Finland, Netherlands, all nice spread across Europe. And again, we focused here on promises of the field, the concerns about the field, the societal engagement. And yeah, so we really were able to do this and to work according to plan. It depends a bit on the local situation. So sometimes we have to improvise with the timing, but okay, this is what we could see. So we ended with a conclusion. We integrated it and Helene pointed to the reports that are now available. But I will continue with some bit more how we did the literature review. So I won't go through this all, but just to show you that something like literature is not just opening a Google scholar and then you have all the results. It's really you go through several rounds and discuss what is important, what is salient, what to select, how to deepen. So we have in the consortium various rounds of meetings in between reporting and presenting drafts, comments and so on. Also with the workshops, this is a bit more, yeah, so this is also a bit more sensitive that you really do the same things, otherwise it's difficult to compare. So we set together to prepare a format of a workshop. This was done by our Norwegian colleagues. We tested the format and all these five different countries then developed the format according to their own possibilities and ambitions. And so we shared the information we commented upon the findings and we also could prepare the end result in a report. So that is how we did this. Some notes about the participants. If you look at all the workshops together in all these five countries, you can see, well, there are quite a few representatives from both research industry in these five countries and also these five sectors. So 43 sounds like a lot, yet if you look in detail you will also conclude this is not the way to do statistics. These numbers are too low to have significant variations in statistical ways. Yet it is very useful to have more qualitative insights into the discourse, the arguments and the concerns that circulate in these various groupings. So they are very helpful for the challenges and the chances of RRI and Open Science in these RFPO, the Research, Funding and Performing Organization. So it's a good result. I will present some of the results now. The literature review focused on these five sectors and what we can say first about sustainable energy that it's promising. It's quite a long lasting promise already. Sustainability is discussed for a long time, seen as very important, as responsible also to address it. So interestingly it's almost automatically seen as responsible research if you focus on sustainable energy. So that's hardly contested. And you also see that because it's hardly contested that all the established actors, so the big research groups on energy and also because of the organizations focusing on building, they really position themselves and they show to the world, look, I am good, I am providing responsible innovation because I am focusing on sustainability. So that is the promise that is there and also the possibility to position yourself to these promises. So that is a setting that is important to keep in mind if you do responsible research innovation that there is this promise around and that people really would like to connect to it. The situation is different in the second case of material science, of new coatings. It's hardly a promise. It's societal and less visible. It's something nobody really reads about a lot. It's not so much in the news. It is an emergent industry, but yeah, it's mostly research and science. And also we saw that when there is responsible research innovation discussed, it's mostly through research and science policy. And the research themselves are much less involved with it. Also the institutions are much less involved with something that is more top-down because we are concerned about ROI and OS in general, so also in this case. With the third case, ICT, what we found in the literature that again, this is visible societally the promise of ICT, but also the concerns probably you all know about these discussions about big data, about algorithms, about artificial intelligence. So that is, it's not artificial to discuss it. People see it as natural to do that. So that helps if you launch the idea of ROI in this sector. Yet what is also striking in this sector is that it's quite a mature one with very big players that already earned a lot of money, have quite a strong societal position, also connections with politicians.