 Okay, welcome everybody to this webinar and thank you for joining. So today we will talk about the viability of our eye and open science. And so my name is Helena Brinken and I will start with a general introduction about the fit for our eye project and the short definition of what is our eye and what is open science. And afterwards Harro van Lente from the Maastricht University is a professor of science and technology studies there will present the work of fit for our eyes sectoral diagnosis on the variety of our eye and open science. And I would like to start with some housekeeping remarks. So you can type all the questions you have in the chat. And we will have time after the presentations to answer them. And we will share of course the slides and the recordings on the foster portal and also on the fit for our website. And yes, I hope you can hear me well. If there if you face any technological problems, let us know via the chat and we will try to help you there. So, yes, I will start as I mentioned with a short introduction. So what is the fit for eye project. So fit for our eye is an acronym for fostering improved training tools for responsible research and innovation. So what is responsible research and innovation. We all know that science and technology can create risk and ethical dilemmas. Therefore, our eye seeks to bring bring research and innovation into the open to anticipate consequences and to involve the society. Societal actors such as researchers, citizens, policymakers, businesses or NGOs work together during a research process to better align the processes and outcomes with values needs and expectations of society. So, in short, it means that our eye means to involve all stakeholders at all levels to minimize the potential negative impact of research and innovation. So they have been developed many definitions, which each of which emphasizes different components. And we've summarized here a few so our eye can mean mutual responsiveness between innovators and social actors. It can mean responsibility for the future impacts of research innovation and it can mean alignment alignment to research and innovation process and it outcomes to values needs and expectations of the society or it can mean reflexivity on the moral acceptability of new technologies and innovation. More practical our eye can be seen as an umbrella concept. So it includes different key criteria and also conceptual dimension. So on this slide, you can see the key criteria that it includes. So such as gender equality and ethical dimension in the research process and content, then open access to research results, formal and informal science education, and also public and societal engagement and governance so aiming at creating models for the these other five components. And more recently also the key criteria sustainability and social justice shows a social justice or inclusion have been added to this concept. So the conceptual dimensions, you can see here so diversity and inclusion, for example means that you involve as early as possible, a wide range of actors to strengthen the democracy and also to broaden your sources of expertise, different disciplines and different perspectives. Then our eye also means to be anticipated and reflective. So you can envision the impacts and reflect on the underlying assumptions and values and and purposes. So to try to see how your research would affect the future. Then one other conceptual dimension is to be open and transparent so it means to communicate the methods and the results and inclusion and to enable dialogue with the public and the last conceptual dimension is a responsiveness and to be adaptive to change. So this means that you are able to modify your modes of thought and behavior, according the circumstances or the feedback you get from including societal actors. So this is the definition of our eye and I also have a definition of open science, a bit shorter now. So we took the definition from the foster website so which says that open science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate, contribute because the research data, the lab notes and all other research processes are freely available. And the terms under which they are available, allow the reuse the redistribution and the reproduction of the research. And in short, we can say it's the movement to make scientific research data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an acquiring society. And yeah, here is just a picture of the four fundamental rules of open science so transparency, accessibility available and free and reusable so just to illustrate this in short. And now I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the fit for our project. So we are a project where with the consortium of 12 partners from nine countries, and we have one more year to go so we started in 2017. And the project moves from the assumption that there's a serious gap between the potential role that our eye and open science could play in the research environment, and that they actual play. So there is a potential for improvement in that sense and fit for eyes intended to help mainstream our eye and open science through transforming them into a set of strategies and means. So we work towards two key objectives. So to bridge this gap and activate institutional change. One of them is training and the other one is governance settings. And we have, yeah, we have three friends strands to that we work on so the first trend is the analytical strand so we want to understand which trends barriers drivers interest and values influence the adoption of our eye and open science. And, for example, also do sectors in national context play a role. And then we work on the testing strand so we observe our eye and open science and action. And how we do this is that we conduct for co creation experiments to figure out possible solution in terms of training approaches and governance settings to see what works and what doesn't. And then the third strand is the proactive strand about promotion and sharing so we want to promote changes, develop training towards and evidence based guidelines and governance settings. So, just quickly so what we've done so far and what we are currently working on. So in the analytical analytical strand the first activity was a mapping and benchmarking process with the key question why is our eye less widespread accepted and embedded in research organization. It was expected and in order to analyze the diffusion and embedment of our eye and open science and to map these general trends and barriers. Our approach was to do a literature review and set a focus groups and the benchmarking exercise. And the result of this was 142 deliverable report on the literature review. So what we tried here is to summarize this a bit so we created these graphics. So you can see here on the left hand side the critical trans shaping science, such as hyper competition or increasing pressure and assessment systems, or the increasing mobility of researchers. On the right hand side we have some barriers of our eye and open science so which can be for example resistance to change or the uncertainty about the concept, or for example lack of training. And here you can see drivers of our eye and open science so how can our eye and open science be moved forward. So these can be political, economic or social, technological or environmental. And there are seven different ways to interpret our eye and open science or perspectives how to see it. So you can for example look at our eye from a democratic perspective or you can see our eye as an opportunity or for management or to better align the values of society and research. And the report and the literature review and also these like visual graphic summary are available online. So here we include the links. And if you want to learn more about this mapping and benchmarking exercise, we already had one webinar about that. So you can access the link and watch the recording. Yes, so that's for the analytical part and in addition to that we've also conducted or we are conducting for co-creation experiments as I mentioned to observe our eye and open science and action. So for our partners, yeah, organizing these experiments where they have focus groups and interviews to engage with the environment in their research institution. And so an experiment can be described as an exercise of engaging different actors. So the quadruple helix actors which are university, industry, policymakers and society into the design of a research project. And this is how we want to understand how institutions need to change the organizational frameworks and allow better our eye embedment and to provide an enhanced value for the actors. So you can find more information on that on our website and we will have a blog post of each about each of the experiments in the coming weeks. So stay tuned and we will post that on Twitter and share it with you and also we will have another webinar about the experiment for sure. So then in terms of activities, we've also done in terms of training, we've done a content mapping and meta-analysis of the training materials that are already out there. So my colleagues created and integrated our eye and open science taxonomy and we are collecting our eye training materials on the foster portal. So you can go there and you also can now get notifications if there are new resources. So this is also mentioned in a blog post on our website. And yes, today we will learn about the second part of our understanding strength, analytical strength, which was a sectoral diagnosis about the variability of our eye and open science. And I would like now to pass on the word to Harold van Lenten. I stop sharing now. Yeah, so I will. And I think you can start sharing your screen. Perfect. Yeah. So thank you very much, Helen. That was helpful to remind us all why we all did these studies. I'm Harold van Lenten. 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 twofold. 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 fit for our 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 systems was focusing on this. So we contribute to that as well. So 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 drivers. 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 value. So there are typically different values at play when you are discussing, say, 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 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 innovation since 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 we have an option to have either of these two. And the last one, photonics, where we focused on glass hydrotechnologies and 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 over Italy, Portugal, Finland, Netherlands. Nice spread across Europe. And again, we focused here on promises of the field, the concerns about the field and 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 Google Scholar and then you have all the results. It's really you go through it through several rounds and discuss what is important, what is salient, what to select and 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 report. So that is how we did this some notes about the participants. If you look at all the workshops together and 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 want 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 chances of RRI and open science and these are FBOs the research funding and performing organization so it's it's 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 it's promising. It's 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 positioned 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 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 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 in something that is more top down, because we are concerned about our eyes. 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 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 RRI 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 have quite a strong societal position also connections with politicians. So it's not so easy to really change things as yet sometimes the concerns can get really big what think of the concerns about Facebook. Then indeed even party events start to raise those questions so it's it's really a bit a different game in this sector. Biotechnology, the fourth one in the literature, we found that it's already quite a long tradition of discussion. Also because it's quite intimate to the human body and reproduction and to maybe changing animals and plants. So the idea of playing God is that something that we should do or not, but it also relates to questions of solidarity in the health system. So there are quite some discussions already going on so RRI can really step into that. Yet what is a sort of barrier in this sector is that there is quite a distance between the researchers doing all kinds of experiments and reporting about it and the applications. So the researchers don't feel they are related to all these ethical outputs because they are just doing some research in the lab. And it's not so clear how that ever could enter the personal lives of people in all kinds of societies. So finally how it is in photonics that is not so much visible like material science yet it is partly an ingredient of the data driven knowledge society. So it's part of this promise of, well, knowledge economy but also with the same concern as big data can have. So what is happening? Does it really serve the purposes of well-being? And you see that it's also mature that there are power asymmetries in the digital infrastructures. So strong players can really have a strong say in what should happen and what should be on the agenda. So that is also the grounds that is different in these sectors. So it's really important to know if you do experiments, if you are working in these sectors that the whole game is different. So that is a clear result from the literature review. Then about the workshops, we could verify these various findings yet we could also change and probe whether national differences were important. Not on a systematic statistical way but in terms of the discourse and the way people talk about it and feel their position. Well, we saw there are quite some differences in terms of institutions. So some countries have dedicated institutions working on these issues, on technology assessments, on the role of technology in society. So the Netherlands has the Raternau Institute working on this and there's a strong Norwegian Norway on this. Whereas others have other institutions mainly trying to convey the good things of science in society. So more at communication and outreach and less on discussion. So that's a national difference. But also it's very different are these funding systems. So for instance in the Netherlands there is responsible innovation is now part of the funding scheme. And you can launch a proposal in those schemes and it's quite visible that it is a topic. Whereas in other systems of research, there is not so much visibility of this. So that is also a difference. What is less different is how researchers and industries relate to these issues. Then the sectors are more important. So it doesn't really matter someone in Portugal or Norway talking about bio-industry as a biotechnology. They really have the same kind of concerns, the same kinds of strategies and outlooks. So then the sectoral differences take over. If I can summarize what you remember from the five sectors we discussed. What matters most is how the promises of the research are visible. Whether they are seen by the wider public. What matters also the links to the industry. Whether there is a major industry with very clear stakes or not. And also whether it resonates with concerns in the wider public. Whether people have the idea this is something that they should be concerned about. Or whether it sounds like a remote and not very prominent concern. So if we then look at some other factors that are important here. That is what we really, what was striking in the workshops in all countries. That the participants truly care about responsible innovation and open science. So the whole premise of this fit for IRI consortium project is that there is a gap between what our IRI could do and what it actually delivers. What we found that it's not so much on the participants themselves are to blame. They really care about that their research is helpful for society and that they contribute to a better society. So that is not contested. But the problem is how this should be related and how you could see this in your research. How and when to address it. And yeah, so what we also found is that this language of responsible research innovation is not always taken up. Some researches were even offended when you talk about responsible research and innovation. Because that seems to imply that before they were just doing something which might be irresponsible. Whereas they say, well, we've always been responsible. How come that you now say we should become responsible? We've done that always. So please change your concepts here. So that is something to take into consideration that it's not seen as an accusation, but as an opportunity to go further with the same ambitions. And these researchers have these ambitions to be good for society. So what we also found is that indeed, and that it links up with our first work package, the overview of the science system and its conditions that there are so many challenges. So people are pressed on all accounts and the economic interests are strong. And so yeah, it's quite a tough world and people have to run many races at the same time and compete different competitions at the same time. There were also in these workshops some very nice suggestions already, for instance, how to include industry and how to be competitive areas of research. And so these were taken on board and these are useful for the further experimentation. You could find more of these in the report. And the last note is sort of a struggle for this project, but probably anyone who is interested in responsible research innovation is how to relate to industry. Because on the one hand, industry is also by governance seen as, well, it's a good user, it's a supporter, it's a partner. A researcher in the university really would like to stress its relevance by pointing out how much industry is interested in its research. But we also found, and that's the other side of the relationship to industry, that industry can become quite directive. We saw that with ICT when industry has a very, it's quite mature. They know what to expect from researchers and they just delegate some of their questions to universities and say, well, this is the puzzle you should solve now and we will pay you for it. But then the universities more or less become a sort of consultancy and less of a free space to investigate. On the other hand, it shows the interest and the relevance, but is it really free research? Is it critical? So that is a difficult relationship. And that is probably, well, also an important condition for any further attempts in our aligned open sites. Okay, I go to the last slide. Can we get some general lessons here? Well, to continue with the last point, relating to industry, it's really important, but ambiguous. On the one hand, it helps to connect to society, but it can be quite directive on its own. Secondly, if you think about public engagement, the temptation depends a bit on the country, but it is to have a one-way communication just to see it as explaining that everything is okay and everything is nice instead of connecting and to try to understand what concerns could be. And so there is a tradition here, for instance, in GMO research, genetic modification of organisms. The idea was for a long-time industry that we should just explain that everything is safe and you should not worry, whereas the concern of the public was something else. They were concerned, okay, if you start experimenting with this in food and in health, who is getting the benefits and who is getting all the profits? And why should we continue with this? Why should we be the guinea pigs of you? That's not so much about safety, but that's about fairness. So that is showing that public engagement is important, not just to get support, but also to make sure you are addressing the right agenda. Then point three, the target and route. So you can focus on the research ethics. So that is then focusing on the individual researcher should do that, but that's not sufficient. You should also connect with broader views of where things are heading and what stakeholders need. So you should both keep in mind and not restrict your interest to ethics alone. Point four of general lessons, we didn't think so much about this before, but afterwards you would say, yes, this is really important, that's a timeframe. So are you talking about short-term gains or risks or long-term gain risks? So that is really, and that matters. That really is an important question to ask where you're interested in open science and responsible research. And fourthly, that's something how to phrase it, how to frame it, how to continue with it. Is it revolutionary or is it already something that we are concerned with for a long time? I told you about these researchers being offended by presentations that said, well, we now do something completely new, we focus on responsibility. And then they said, well, we do that all our careers already, so please don't blame us. On the other hand, if you say, well, we continue with responsibility and we did that always already, that's also not a contentious point to raise attention because then, yeah, it's business as usual. Why should you give it a try? So it's not completely usual. It's trying to step up and improve, but it's building on attempts and ambitions that have been already there. Okay, so this is what I would like to share about the research we did in the WorkPackage 2 on the literature review and on the workshops. And I think this gives a good overview of the variations in sectors and countries, especially sectors. And this should be a good stepping stone for further studies. And of course, I'm also interested to hear some questions or queries about further interests of the audience out there. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, and yes, everyone, everybody who has a question, please just type in the chat. So far, I don't think there are any, but we'll wait a few minutes. So there is one question. Did you find any particularly successful approaches to training and open research? Any particular? We were not so much interested in these trainings. No, so I think it's too early. What we have seen is good examples of discussions. So we saw in the Netherlands a good example of discussions on the data society. And that raises questions about privacy and about reliability. But training was less developed. So no, I cannot give a good answer to that one. Thank you from that person. So someone else says thank you for sharing the learnings. And yes, so I think we'll just stay online a couple of more minutes. But just to let you know, we will share the recording of this and also the slides. We'll put it on the foster portal and then we will share the links via the fitfire website and our social media channels. And also for the people who registered, we will send it out. So there are just a lot of thank yous here. So I would say also thank you from our side for joining us and for presenting Harro. And we hope that it was useful and valuable and we will see you in the next webinar. Okay, thank you very much. And if people are still having additional thoughts after some time, they can always approach us or me and so willing to share. And well, thank you Elan for guiding and leading us through this webinar. And yeah, so that was it. Yes, thank you. Goodbye.