 My name's Ronni Poffin. I am leading or helping to lead along with the European Science Foundation, the ProRes project, which I'm going to introduce you to. I noticed there are some friends and colleagues from the project in this meeting, so they'll correct me if I say something out of line or out of order. But what's interesting is I think the way which Camel started this session is quite useful because he's raised some of the issues that are of direct concern to what we need to try and do within the ProRes project. My aim is to just introduce you to the project, 20 minutes to maybe, you know, half an hour at most, and then we're looking for your help in moving the project forward and telling us how to achieve our complex ends. So I want to, I want to thank FitforRRI for giving us the opportunity to do this. Wait a minute. Okay. And obviously this is just the standard introduction to what ProRes is. Again, it's a Horizon 2020 project, 14 different partners across Europe, and the project is running until, at the moment, until April 2021, but we may be looking for an extension as everybody else has done. These are the people who are involved in this project. Now, I mean, what's interesting about this? I'm introducing you to the partners right away because this is part of the task that confronts us, the complexity of the task that confronts us. We are overlapping a lot of other cluster projects, including FitforRRI, a lot of RRI projects, but a lot of projects within the SWAPS program that is addressing research ethics and research integrity. So we have, we are sharing a lot of interests, we're sharing a lot of goals, and we're also sharing a lot of potential outcomes. The partners that we put together for this particular project, we chose very, very carefully for their skills and in an attempt to cover the range of needs that we needed to address. So, for example, we do have experts in research ethics, research integrity, RRI specific groups of our partners have operated in overlapping cluster projects, but also at the same time, we were tasked to address specific projects of concern to the commission. These are kind of obvious, AI and robotics, big data use, engineering, particularly nano-engineering, nanotechnology, the environment and how to deal with the latter one, crises and catastrophes. And of course, that necessarily brings in, and it's unavoidable, the pandemic and COVID-19, unavoidable. We will go back to discuss that, but I don't want us to dwell on that alone, as I think Kamal was trying to, the point he was trying to make. What specifically our main goal is to encourage policymakers and their advisors to seek evidence for their decisions from research that's been conducted ethically and with integrity. Now, that hides a whole host of difficult issues. The idea is that we want policymakers to look very carefully at the evidence that they choose and that that evidence that they use in order to design policy should be good evidence. Now, we'll come back to the notion of good evidence. We mean ethically good and we mean it methodologically good, although our task obviously is mainly to deal with issues of integrity and ethics in the production of the kind of evidence that we want to encourage policymakers to use. Now, what's the need, what lies behind this? The argument has been that biomedicine has generally dominated the ethics guidelines and it's been very influential in health policies. And all of the ethics codes and guidelines in the other sciences, the non biomedical sciences, the non medical sciences, do address research conduct and practices and there are lots of ethics codes and guidelines and guidelines for integrity and so on. But not many of them focus on improving policy making advice specifically. Now our argument all along and from the original proposal is that if you don't evidence your policy well, then you damage society. You damage economies, you damage the environment if you don't look you don't design your policies based on good evidence. So that's fundamental to the steer that we need to give. Now, lots of people talk about evidence based policy and it becomes a cliche in my career. I think now more than 30 years ago, there was a move towards evidence based medicine, and it was only after, you know, people started to ask questions you mean evidence, you mean medicine wasn't based on evidence before that. Well, a lot of it wasn't and some of the studies the early studies I saw, you know, a lot of medical practice was based on about 10% evidence and the rest was case based or, you know, based on anecdotes or based on what had worked in the past customer practice convention. So they are going to behind evidence based policy making should confront the same set of issues decision takers and policy maybe should be seeking evidence to support their work from all the expertise that's on offer. And if there are practices, whatever form they take, or evidence providers make mistakes in various ways. And this goes back to the notion of science as being uncertain. And so, in other words, mistakes can be made and are made by scientists and researchers. Then, if policy makers just simply use flawed evidence, then they're going to be damaging society in various ways. The social structure, the economic structure, the cultural structure, as well as as we know as having impacts on the environment. So what we're trying to argue for and discover how best to do it is that research should be as open as possible. It should be as reliable and again trustworthy as possible. And it shouldn't be driven by ideology or vested interests that damage the nature of the evidence that can be produced. If we do manage to find out what produces robust evidence, then that's the kind of evidence that can benefit societal well-being. Look after us and look after our societies. As a consequence of trying to do, we realised we have to have a much broader definition of research. I mean, can I even introduce this notion of what do we mean by science? Well, we're not just talking about science, we're talking about research and the broader notion of what constitutes evidence. So the most effective evidence and analysis that's used by policy makers, we know, rarely comes from academic researchers or from blue skies research because it's built it in so many ways. In fact, policymakers are more likely to go to their favoured lobbying agencies. They're more likely to go to the think tanks that they prefer and whose ideology matches theirs. But that's where they are still providing evidence. They are still looking at research, often it's secondary research, not primary research. And so what we want to say is that the standards of integrity that we normally apply to academic researchers and, you know, to independent researchers should apply to everybody. They should apply to everybody who's gathering evidence, analysing evidence for use in policymaking. And that's the only way in which we can develop trust in the process of conducting research. Now, we need everybody's help to do that. So the ProRes project needs to know how best we can do that, how best we can achieve that goal. We've got some ideas and we have made some suggestions in terms of the activities that we've been engaged in. Of course, this is a SWAPS project and so our underlying assumptions are common to all the SWAPS science within poor society projects. It's the interests of those that provide advice to ensure that the evidence produced is reliable and trustworthy and ethically generated because that's how trust and repeat use and repeat funding and so on is developed. And it's the interests of those who take the decisions to show that the evidence has been produced in the best possible way. And so trusting policy makers depends on that process as well. It's not just trusting the science that we're talking about here, we're talking about trust in the policy makers. And of course, again, Camel raised this issue in that old Michael Dove UK minister's notion of people being fed up with experts. I don't think people are fed up with experts. They're fed up with the way in which expertise is presented. And that's something that we need to look at in more care, with more care. So what are our challenges? I mean, this goes back to the original call. We were a challenge to cover all non-medical sciences. That's everybody else. And that's a big challenge. It also explains the diversity of the expertise that we are drawing on. And also, this is the next challenge, not just academic research, because we realize they aren't the most influential evidence generators for policy makers. So we had to include the diversity of all evidence-generating organizations. And that means sourcing the full range of existing relevant resources, you know, what's available to help people do this job of generating reliable and trustworthy evidence. And it also meant that our stakeholder range has got to be enormous, you know, from funding, from commissioning through researchers at all sorts of levels, right the way through to policy advisors and to policymaking, but also to include those people who influence the culture of the debate, like journalists and science journalists, but not just science journalists, investigating journalists as well. So it's a heck of a job this, I don't mind telling you. And it is complicated and broad, broad in terms of all the forms of evidence generation, you can think of, and broad in terms of the range of stakeholders. So then we started to think about, so what's in it for people? I mean, it's quite easy for people to say, I follow a particular code or guideline or I behave with integrity. And that can become kind of tokenist. We need to kind of sanction people or find a way of sanctioning people who don't behave properly, whatever they say they're doing. And we need to be able to reward people who do follow guidelines for the production of honest evidence, good evidence. And then, and again, Camel, one or two of the questions for Camel's introductory speech, talked about the problem of impact. So we need to find a way of assessing what kind of really works and discuss the notion of how we can evaluate these outcomes to see that policymakers are in fact choosing honest, reliable, robust evidence. And the framework has to match the ways in which other people have approached this. We've taken a long time to actually move towards this particular structure. And so what we're actually saying is our guidance framework has to have the following elements. A statement that can be signed up to. And then people will go along with and that covers this range of stakeholder. We're calling it the Accord statement at the moment, we might change that. We need also to help people to be able to identify the ethical evidence generators. So we have, we have a toolbox and we're developing a toolbox. Primarily that would be aimed at policymakers, but also into researchers because if researchers fill the toolbox incorrectly, then policymakers will know where to go to find the right people to make the right decisions. And then, like so many of these cluster projects in research and research integrity, we are providing a range of supportive resources. How I intend to show you how that works by a quick visit to the website. And so fundamentally that framework will supply the support guidance evidence that people need to be able to do the job we're asking them to do. So what we want you to do. And this community which includes RRI includes research ethics and research integrity because we're all in a sense after the same mission. We had a little competition within our consortium for a good slogan, mine lost actually my slogan was honest evidence for honest policies. And why did it lose, well, because what does honesty mean. And how far do you push this notion of honesty. So, yeah, that's the slide what I want to do is simply quickly take you if I can to if it's still around. Yeah, I just, you know, obviously you can spend more time looking at this and, you know, interrogating it and also offering us advice and suggestions but this is just to introduce the Accord statement. And that is, we commit to only using research that's undertaken ethically. We recognize that an underpinning by high quality research and evidence, including appraisals and evaluations is a precondition for evidence based policymaking and so on. Obviously, I'm not going to read all the way through it. But there are issues here that have to do with how the evidence is generated, how transparent it is, how complex of interest can be dealt with, because they're always going to be there. And vested interests are part and parcel of policymaking and also of course of science, necessarily so, and all forms of research. But we are trying to seek ways in which we can secure independence and integrity, and so on. And the final thing that I want to do is just look a quick look at toolbox. And this will operate as a range of different levels. But if you want to say to a policymaker, you know, they might say to you, well, how do I assess the ethical quality of research evidence, you're telling me to do this. This is the best way to make the decisions that I have to make. Well, we want to operate at a level, varying levels of sophistication, if you like. And the first level is very, very simple. Who did the research? How did they do it? Who did they study or what did they study? Why did they do it? Where did they do it? Was it reviewed in any way, peer reviewed or ethically reviewed? And what was the outcomes? Now, a policymaker or even their advisor will want those questions answered simply. If you're a researcher, you'll want to know how to fully address those questions so that you can convince a policymaker that in fact you are the one providing the evidence that they should be looking at. Okay, so fundamentally, that's a very quick overview of the progress project, what it is we're trying to achieve. And you can see immediately how it kind of links to the issues, certainly the chemical rays but it certainly overlaps with all the sort of RRI considerations. A few closing remarks. We were actually tasked to generate something that was equivalent to the OVADO convention and the Helsinki Declaration in biomedical science. Now, that is no easy task. And I think it's problematic because not everybody signed up, not every state signed up to the OVADO convention. And in my experience in doing ethics evaluation, ethics research appraisal for the European Commission, I noticed an awful lot of people simply declare and biomedical applications declare that they support the Helsinki Declaration. But how do I know that they do? So it can become very tokenist. So, and we don't know, nobody's ever conducted an impact analysis of OVADO or Helsinki. So we're tasked with achieving something that nobody knows was effective in the first place. I've actually written both to OVADO and to Helsinki, and they've never answered my questions. Several times I've said, you know, what effect have you had? What's the impact? They don't know. Now, I want something more than that. I want certainly our progress project to have an impact to make sure that some of the mistakes that we have seen very, very clearly in policymaking in terms of the pandemic. They should never have happened. So we want policy makers to think transparently, openly and carefully about how they get the evidence that they need in order to make the decisions that they make. Okay, so thank you very much. I hope we can get some interactive and some suggestions about how we actually do this. Don't tell me how difficult it is. I know how difficult it is. Tell me what we can possibly do in order to achieve. Thank you so much, Ron. I think to all the participants, if you want to raise a hand or leave a question to Ron, you can do it. Suggestions as well as questions? Any critical comments? Yes, we have one here. Are there any low hanging fruit when it comes to influencing policy makers? My feeling is that we might have more choice focusing on policy at the local level. Yeah, I think Andrea is right there. And again, we are seeing this in terms of what's happening certainly in the UK and also I live in France and I can see the same happening to a certain degree in France as well. I think it is so true. I think you might have more effect. The question I asked to Kamal has to do with that notion of how do you gain confidence and ensure that the public has some trust in evidence. I think it's easier to do if you have a closer connection with the generators of the evidence and the people who are actually implementing the policy based on that. So I think yes, Andrea, I think you're right. I didn't want to say too much with regard to Kamal's talk, but you see it specifically with a highly interdisciplinary set of issues to do with public health. So the temptations in public health is to always do things at a national level. It immediately raises issues of social control. There is, if we're talking about the power and the distribution of power, of course, the biomedics, biomedical or clinical tend to have some power, but public health medics are quite different in terms of their operation in the world. They need national levels of power and control in order to manage an epidemic. And certainly that is necessary to manage a pandemic as well. It is essentially about power. But the interesting thing, of course, it is about the influence of behavioural science could be a lot stronger because it is about understanding how people respond to the application of those power. It's definitely the case that it would operate more effectively at a local level. So what's happening in the UK now, of course, is that it is drilling down to local levels, but that power application is coming from the centre. Now, instead, it should be in the hands of the local councils and the local authorities. And then I'm sure it would be a lot more effective and perceived better by people in the community. Okay, so there's another comment from Rafael. I guess your proposed solution covers my questions, but as it seems to be one of your base assumptions I want to ask in nonetheless, what does it mean not to be driven by ideology? What about the economic framing of research in sense of what is being funded and what is not? Example, you can do tech research from an economic perspective or you can do it from a human-centered perspective. Both these ideology settings, the call and providing sound evidence. So what are you going to do? Yeah, again, I mean, it's a very good question and it's something that we have thought about. I suppose dealing with one element, not being driven by ideology, means that you have to be, we want to encourage policymakers to be open to the range of evidence that's available. And not simply go back to the tried and trusted think tank or lobbying agent or maybe academic research centre that they've gone to in the past. What we would want to encourage is have you considered the alternatives. It does not mean, and it can't mean that we would have to challenge people's ideologies because ideologies, the basis for, you know, if you like their election, their elevation to the position of decision making. So it doesn't mean you shouldn't have an ideology, but what you should do, and this is where transparency comes into it, and transparency then engenders trust, you should declare what your ideology is. You should be able to say, yeah, this is the particular set of assumptions and beliefs and values and principles that I follow. And you should also say I'm willing to look at other ideologies to see if they can convince me that, you know, or even maybe try it, you know, conduct political experiments to see if an alternative theory or alternative ideology possibly works. I mean, I can give an example, I think Raphael's point about economics or human centred perspective is interesting because we should be looking at economics as if it were human centred. I mean, my particular economic ideology is linked to Schumacher's notion of human centred economics, which is essentially Buddhist economics. So, you know, I'm combining, you know, the notion of a, you know, if you like a particular economic perspective or economic theory with a humanistic one. And there are people who argue from that point of view. But to take an alternative, if we look at a particular think tank, I mean, I've used this example often because it illustrates the problem that we confront. There is a think tank in the UK called the Institute for Economic Affairs, the IEA. Now, the IEA is extremely well funded, has a tremendous amount of influence. Fundamentally comes from a freedom and ask perspective, it is known by no means Keynesian. It was certainly favoured by the Thatcherite ideologies. Now, there's nothing wrong in a think tank providing evidence. The problem I have with something like the IEA is we don't know where the money comes from. Now, if they could enhance their transparency, my trust in that particular ideological position would be improved, would be enhanced. However, my trust is lowered as a consequence of me not knowing where the money is coming from. Now, that's not the only issue I would raise with something like an agency like that, because I would say they move beyond simply being a think tank into being a lobbying agency. Now, so that raises another issue. But Raphael, you're right, it is extremely difficult, but the way around it is a declaration of what your ideology and or your theoretical position is to be transparent about that. But also from the point of view of the policy makers to say, oh, what are the alternatives? I just don't rule them out immediately. I consider what they might be. Thank you, Ron, but Raphael is another question here also, but how to guarantee that there is an equal integrity in each local government and not a concern with local economies or lobbies or other interests. The fact is that there is no real transparency in what lies beneath the local policies. Yes, that's from Raquel. Yeah, I mean, this is a very realist position. Sorry. Yeah. It is a very realist position. I mean, we're under no illusions about the nature of local politics. And clearly, there are dangers because local political influences, disguised power bases and so on, can influence what actually goes on and they're going to be more or less interested in transparency. Clearly, they're not going to be transparent if there is a degree of corruption going on. I suppose it requires, I mean, I'm not against and what I said before about public health, for example, is that it needs to be, to some degree, operating at a national and given the pandemic at a global level, global with the local, the national with the local. And the question of saying, you know, if local lobbies or economies or whatever are influential, they need to be transparent about it. And the assurance of that transparency must come from a higher level from a national level. In some cases might come from, if you like, a professional level, the profession of researchers. At this moment, it goes back to that notion of a community of researchers and scientists who are interested in research integrity. And that has grown, obviously, as a consequence, I would say, as a consequence of the Cancer Project Commission has funded, because that community is where we know each other, we can work with each other, we share each other's ideas and suggestions. So that, you know, we can operate both of you, like at the political level, the legislative level, the ministerial level, but also at the, in terms of the profession of researchers, so we can challenge if things look a bit, for want of a better term suspicious or fishy at the local level, that needs to be challenged. And that goes, that goes to the other stakeholder, remember that I've said we're interested in the journalist and the science reporter, and the local journalist and the national journalist because that's how you find out about these kinds of things. We've got a particular esteem for investigative journalism, and we have contacts within our group with the two groups of investigative journalists, one that operates at a global level and one that operates at a national level. Now, we will need them to sign up to our Accord statement, we'll need them to behave properly as well, and not operate just within the ideology of their newspaper. But I'm trying to answer that really difficult problem that Raquel has raised there, and that is that notion, how do you tease out what the suspicious nuances are within local communities. Thank you. Thank you once more, Ron. I don't know if anyone has more questions to raise to Ron. So, thank you so much once again, and please remind that we have another session so we're going to make a huge break, and then we start at 11, 1145. Okay. Let me say thank you for the opportunity and encourage people to keep in touch with us so that we can, we can do this job. We need advice, we need suggestions and we need ongoing interaction, it's very important. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you so much.