 Also, because we have a dense program for this final section. We will start with a presentation about our guidelines for governance from Luchana, Andrea from Conocenza Innovazione, who did, as all the other partners, a great job in finalizing one of the octos to the liberal goal of it for RRI and one of the most oriented towards the future of RRI. And then, we will try to discuss a little bit together about how to mainstream RRI in the European research era. And last but not least, I would like to hear all the conservation partners and our wonderful project officer for our final greetings, because, well, it has been like almost 42 months of our done fun work. So let's start immediately so that we can have time for the proper greetings from everybody and to discuss it better. Luchana, I give you the floor and thanks. OK. I hope to, are you able to see? Yes, starting the video. Yes, OK. OK, good morning to everyone. The subject is the guidelines of governance setting for responsible open science that has been developed under the Fit for RRI project. But it's also a kickoff for a reflection about the future issues concerning Fit for RRI. So I would like to start speaking about the context. So the context is that already presented this morning in the first session, that is responsible research and innovation open side have been the main policies strategies for what concerns science society relations under Horizon 2020. And these led to the consolidation of a large stack of knowledge in terms of theory, approaches, practices, experiences, also community of people working around and over the concept of RRI and the practice of RRI and open science together. And now the question and the challenge we have to face now is the mainstreaming RRI and open science in the European research area because the great majority of researchers in Europe, the majority of labs and the institution doesn't know the same concept of RRI or what RRI means or how to use it. So the focus should be that of the usefulness of RRI and open science for them, for researchers, for research organizations, so to avoid to consider RRI and open science as something merely prescriptive or normative approaches or another obligation for researchers to accomplish. So this is the concepts from which the guidelines started up, that is understanding how to make the mainstreaming, how to support the mainstreaming process in order to activate the institutional change in research institution in a speeder way than in the past. Okay, the guideline has a story inside. There is a pathway that we made, carried out a literature review. Then the outputs of the literature review has been discussed in different context daily meetings in different European countries. Then an inventory of more than 300 advanced experience in RRI and open science has been developed. We organized a benchmarking exercise on the selected group of 18 advanced experience in order to understand how RRI works, who works in the best conditions. And then we observed four experimentation carried out in the framework of the fit for RRI project in order to observe RRI and open science in action. So the key question we follow was that of what RRI and open science are for? Because we have different interpretations, and we already heard this morning about what RRI and open science beyond even the definition of RRI. There are three main streams of thought, if you think, possible to do, to schematize in the way. The first stream is that seeing RRI and open science for leading science to take more responsibility over its own benefits and risks, especially in relation to the societal challenge human can't ask to face. Then there is a second interpretation of RRI and open science, especially RRI, especially as a way for aligning the research process and its outcomes to values, to the needs, to the expectation of the European society. And the third one is consider RRI as a way for leading science to cooperate with relevant actors and stakeholders, including lay people. These views of RRI and open science allow me to identify three major trends that probably is in side-to-side in a way science is socially perceived, that is an irresponsible science, that is science is no longer perceived as producing only benefits, but also increasingly producing risk. Another perception in effective and unreliable science, science is no longer perceived as effective to cooperate with the societal challenge to solve the problem of societies. And its authority, results and medals are more and more questioned. And third, an isolated science, that is science is still perceived as an isolated and self-referential institution. And now it is asked to open to the contribution of stakeholders and lay people. These are three perceptions that are there and we are to deal with. As a part of the same process, science is also undergoing a complex set of transformation process, including, for example, the increasingly harsh competition for accession fund, for career position, for prestige. The exploitation of young researchers, because we are seeing how an increasing number of PhD students and postdocs are working in our university, without any perspective to remain in the track tenure positions. There is an increasing pressure on research assessment system. There is an increasing segmentation of research organization, tenure track versus non-tenure track personnel. So the end of the idea of science as a community of peers and the decreasing rate of data reproduction, sometimes we heard this morning to evoke this issue, critical dynamics affecting research quality, for example redundant papers, low-risk research strategies, and so forth. These are only some of the complex set of transformation process affecting science. So these are also connected with RRI. The key issues to cope with, all in all, is that the overall social weakness of science, in the context of contemporary society, the lay modern society, which also influences the most intimate mechanism of the research process. The experiments, the validation, the view, the world, the system, and so forth. So RRI and open science can be understood as a specific policy framework, aimed at managing this disinformation, affecting science and science society relations. So what is important to me is understanding what is at stake with RRI and open science, is not only making science more open, not only making science ethically more sound, or more gender-sensitive, or whatever, but what is at stake is allowing scientists and the researchers to keep on producing reliable scientific knowledge in a very rapidly changing social context. So in the view of the guidelines, RRI and open science could contribute in this effort, in facing this kind of transformation. We have to be aware that RRI and open science do not exist in themselves. We can refer to them as a set of resources, a set of knowledge, a set of practices, providing a cultural background that could be a source of inspiration, but the concept of RRI and the practice of RRI is very large and sometimes very large. There is an interpretive flexibility for RRI. RRI and open science so only exist when someone, a research organization, a research system, starts to use that, that is when RRI and open science are contextualized and actually implemented. So the guidelines are intended to help research organization exactly to make these steps, that is turning an abstract view of RRI and open science into a real RRI and open science profile, tailored to specific researchers, specific department, university, lab. So this is another possible meaning of the title of our conference is that that is RRI for real. And the concept of governance setting we use in the guidelines is used to refer to the activation of this process, that is leading to the introduction of institutional change, opening up to the possibility for RRI and open science to evolve over time in an autonomous way inside the research organization. Finally the logical structure of the guidelines. The guidelines are divided into three parts. The first one is guideline for interpretation, that is what is happening to science in this moment, which is the momentum and what RRI and open science are for in this context. The second part is the guidelines are the guidelines for decisions, how to tailor RRI and open science to the research organization and which kind of strategy is the most appropriate for doing so. And finally the guidelines for action, very trivially how to start and how to implement the governance setting process, that is how to start the machine, turn on the machine, the engine and when we could consider it as completed, that is when we are sure that RRI exists in the organization and could evolve autonomously. Making the guidelines entailed facing different questions that emerge and should deserve being deepened, especially in the RRI open science mainstreaming perspective. For example, what does implement the institutional change actually mean, how to mobilize the key actors on RRI and open science, which are the key factors for triggering institutional change, how RRI and open science can be started, when can RRI and open science be considered practically triggered, which are the more effective actions and measures to promote mainstreaming. And this is the last question that I would like to focus on and I would like to discuss with you today, that is the the perspective of mainstreaming. The focus is on that because our conference, our summit this day, is dedicated, is devoted to the future of RRI, that is mainstreaming RRI, especially in the STEM, in the context of the next framework program. We have two different aspects of RRI mainstreaming that should be considered in our discussion today. On the one side, there is the question of mainstreaming, the RRI oriented institutional change, that is how to mainstream the process of change of the organization, the structural change, the institutional change inside the organization, research organization, research funded organization. And then the second one, task that is mainstreaming RRI in the research context and in the research measures, that is changing the way scientific knowledge is produced. Obviously these two aspects are intertwined closely in relationships, but they, at least analytically, at least analytically, be useful to keep them separated. One concern is institutional change, and the other one concern the research process, the research contents and the research methods. So, the key question is how mainstreaming RRI, what it means in practice, which means can be more effective following the process. And today we would like to get your opinion on this topic, also using the mentee-major pole system, so as to facilitate the discussion. Thank you very much for your attention. I leave the floor to Andrea. Thank you. Hi. Welcome back. So, I wrote in chat how you can connect to mentee and in a second that we start sharing our mentee-major survey. So, you have to go to mentee.com and type our code for interacting, which is 5405692. Luciano, please stop sharing your screen. Yes. Great. If you have any issues entering mentee-major, we are here and just ask, do we have our mentee? Can you see it? Yeah, I see. Heart going fast, almost all there. We can start Luciano the way, because you will be, as Luciano said, our first like topic of discussion will be mainstreaming Hararai Oriental Institutional Change, which is one of the focus of the guidelines. And just to warm up, we can start with a question about the measures that can be helpful in favoring the institutional changes in the context of mainstreaming. And in this case, we have six options. And I ask you to take maximum two of them. The measures could be reactive forms of professional recognition for researchers involved with Hararai, networks of trainers and communities of practice on Hararai, Hararai-related certification and network schemes, coalition among research organization, Hararai Resort Centers, and basic Hararai requirements plus public research funds. Well, there are some of the topics that, like I would say the majority of the topic we discussed in these three days. Birgit, tell me that only one can be selected. Okay, sorry for that. Probably it's my mistake in preparing my mentee. Okay, so sorry, but you can tell me which is your second option. Okay, so who wants to comment its answer? I see that the majority for the moment are headed on basic Hararai requirements to access public research funds. So, and in this case, how would you imagine these? Do you think that these, like, Hararai requirements should apply at the national level, for example, or only at European one? There are also forms of professional recognition for researchers involved with Hararai that got the majority of like, preferences. Next, I think, also channel is the tokenism. Ron, who wants to intervene? May I come in? Sure. So, I mean, I had problems to make my choice because these are very heterogeneous. I mean, many of them are quite top-down and others are bottom-up. So, targeting researchers is different than the environment. I mean, you know, it's, of course, helpful that funders have these requirements, but it's likely not so much the main building part. I mean, you would say, okay, you set up support for meeting these requirements and then researchers use it to a certain degree. And on the other hand, you want them to become active themselves. And for this, you need these networks and recognition of their activities. Yeah, so they meet in the middle, hopefully, but it's different perspectives. So maybe you should have, like, two options or two questions, I don't know. I think Berger is right. I think the problem is if you have some form of professional recognition for researchers, some kind of branding or licensing, call it what you will, then it becomes inevitable that all the other things follow on. The thing that really concerns me is what I mentioned in our previous discussion, and that is the idea that if you see RRI somehow mentioned or ticked in a research proposal, then that becomes okay. It doesn't mean people know or understand or take on the culture of RRI. However, if they've gone through some training, they've received professional recognition, they get a career reward for it, then if they're bound to mention it in their proposals, and you get a knock-on effect for all the other criteria. Well, I have to say that, more or less, I agree with wrong concerns. I mean, in terms of picking the RRI box, because what I see in the future is just like RRI transformed as a paragraph of session B. So, absolutely. That's for me, in terms of future of RRI, one of my main concerns, because we worked for seven years, probably also using different languages that was something that we merged also from the previous session. We are like somehow different communities put together under this big umbrella concept of RRI, but sometimes we don't speak even among each other the same language. And so, it's for us very hard then to speak the language of those outside this umbrella. So, for example, in terms of interacting with those working on disruptive technologies and so on, so probably this could be one of the efforts required for really, one of the other efforts really required for when streaming the future of RRI. And then in terms of what Virgit said, saying, okay, but here we have a mix of top-down, bottom-up issues and so on. This is absolutely true. But also when we worked, we worked also together with Virgit on the national feedback workshops organized with Fit for RRI, it seemed to me that it's still hard to understand, for example, when talking about institutional change, where it is the exact measure of implementing institutional change according to a bottom-up way or a top-down one. And probably the part of the solution is that it looks like too much demagogic, but somehow in the needle and it depends a lot on the dimension of the organization and on the context. So, for example, if I look at my own reality, which is a huge university, probably top-down at the initial phase is more needed for mainstreaming than bottom-up. But then, of course, you will lay bottom-up, otherwise it will become just a prescription. So, there's a lot of issues concerning this. Let me have a look at the chat. Well, I just want to add something, as I didn't hear the word corporation or collaboration, I just want to add that internally in the institutions, RRI put in the table the obligation, the need of cooperation between different departments, different responsibilities, different roles within the institution. And this is what is really critical, because we can, even to set up some services or infrastructures for some basic things in open science, like open access to publications or open data, we need to collaborate. And for other parts, it's quite critical. I think we all realize that the need of cooperation and collaboration within institutions to make changes. Yeah. Thanks, Pedro. Giovanni here said that he agreed we very much agree to be precise with what Ron said, and I don't know if he wants to add something. While Fabio said that he agreed and he selected the idea, the button seven, I guess, it's RRI Reserve Centers or Coalition Among Research, which one of the two, Fabio? Because he said, as a group of people within the institution able to steer the process and also make a comment and say, tokenism can be addressed when the RRI requirement is more than ticking boxes. Like his current proposal, one needs to show serious plans for implementation and for knowledge utilization. It is possible to require similar credible plans for RRI. Yeah. I agree with you, Harro. On the other hand, probably we should ask the second one, okay? Fabio answered. Similar credible plans for RRI, yes, but my opinion is that this should happen also internally for our organization and not just outside, outside, like the European Commission. Maybe we can move. Luciano, do you want to add something? Okay. Only to say that the first and the last options tend to use the competition among researchers or among research organizations for introducing RRI. That is a basic RRI requirement to access public research funds. There is a harsh competition for that, so RRI becomes a convenient aspect for them to follow. And the other one, because presently it's a real problem because for many researchers making RRI related initiatives, for example, public engagement, not only is not recognized professionally, but sometimes is penalizing their career. So we have to reverse this situation. So also become, in this way, RRI could become part of a competition for career, for career positions. While the others is clear that when what will end, probably we will need other forms external to support research organization, coalition, trainings, research centers. That is a system not only, not no longer working at the level of a single organization, but in the environmental organization, I remerced it. This is the sense, I believe, that the second and the certification of the third, the fourth and the fifth options. Then I see that there are no other like issues on the chart, so we can move to the second question. In this case, you are required to type answering to the question, which are the main actors who may play a major role in our RRI mainstreaming, because I'm sure that could bring like interesting elements to our discussion. Thunders seems to be changing rapidly, but still I can see that thunders are the most wanted form in streaming. Together with researchers, that's like many witnessing again this struggle between bottom up and top down processes. We have policy makers as well, as an important cultural potential like repetition that are not paired. Together with some entrepreneurs, if I see one, I see well, is very small. I don't know, because here we mainly belong to research funding of performing organization. In the meanwhile, Ron commented saying policy makers do not wholly mainly listen to RFPOs, they listen to other evidence in the reading organization. This is a very important point and something that we've had to address within the ProRes project primarily, because the commission's view seems to be about, you know, if you like academic research organizations, and one of the problems with RRI for me generally has been that it has focused on academic research organizations, and maybe independent research agencies at various times. Policy makers do not listen to them. Policy makers listen to favored sources primarily, and those sources have to, you know, one page executives summaries are just too big for them anyway, right? They go to the places they always go to, and then one of the biggest challenges for industry, for the research industry, is to target policy makers so that the evidence that they are producing, the ethical evidence they're producing, conducted responsibly, and so on, is the evidence that the policy maker uses or wants to hear. Now, you know, we don't want to talk about pandemics again because, you know, everybody's kind of fed up about that, but it illustrates the point, you know, where do you get your evidence from? And an awful lot of the problems that have been illustrated, I would say, particularly in the USA, and less so perhaps in parts of Europe, is that, you know, the policy makers are going to people who they, you know, they have regularly used, and they're not necessarily people who follow RRI. So, I mean, I would say the biggest challenge then, if you think policy makers are the people who can make a difference here, you need to get to the think tanks. You need to get to the lobbying agencies. Now, I would challenge the RRI community to tell me how they can influence think tanks to embed RRI in their missions. I think that's the biggest challenge. And it, you know, it requires a broader notion of what research actually is. You know, it's evidence generation, if you like. It isn't just, you know, blue skies academic research. It's evidence generation and it's evidence analysis. An awful lot of think tanks don't do primary research. They do secondary research. They take on the evidence that they think will influence the policy makers that they've got the connection to. So, you know, I feel very strongly policy makers are not the place to do this. The RRI community needs to know how to get to the influences of policy makers. You know, it's one step before you get to the policy maker. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Luciano. Maybe you can, you can leave a bit this because we lost Andrea for a bit. Okay. Sorry, but today she's there again. It's the day of technical issues. Just proceed, no problem. Yeah, I will show you. Share the screen once again. Yeah, just a second. And so we can be back exactly. We have also some points here from... Okay. I was hearing Ron talking and then at a certain point. Okay, sorry for being... Who was talking? Sorry, because... If it was Ron and now in the shot, people are saying that Ron is right. So... We can't leave it at that, folks. I mean, you know, we need some challenges, don't we? But you know, my point is it's kind of naive to just go for the policy makers because they won't listen. Or if they listen, they say, oh yeah, RRI is a wonderful thing. But you know, to make the difference you're talking about in RRI culture, you need to meet the people who influence the policy makers. That's my point. I'd say no more. Ron, may I ask you something? Because I'm curious about this. I do believe that being heard from policy makers, from an academic or from an academia in general could be hard. But on the other hand, do you think that this is a problem of priority or this is a problem of messages? I mean, I do believe that science could have an important role in shaping our future. So why, like especially in the last, I would say, 50 years or maybe less, the academia is not so hurt and cannot intervene so actively in the public debate. We are real like policy making efforts. Do you want me to come back on that? I mean, in some respects you're right. But you know, we've got to be realistic about it. You know, I think a few years ago, a keen minister at the time, Michael Gove, in the UK said the public have had enough of experts. Now, and that particular populist message, I think it influenced, sadly, Brexit. It influenced the election of a particular kind of conservative government in the UK. And need I say more about how it influenced the election of the American, the current American president. Now, so, you know, that rejection of expertise and science. I mean, I remember this happening years ago and when there was a major defense of science in 2008 and scientists had to engage in the public debate much more. You see, if I'm talking about the people who influence the policymakers, the debate was in the press, it was in the media, it was on broadcasting. And, you know, you need to engage in that kind of debate. You need the journalists to come on song and say, why should we listen to researchers? Why should, what do we mean about responsibility? Yeah, what does it exactly mean? And let the RRI community tell the journalists what they mean. You know, so that's just one sector of this, if you like this influencing process before you get to the policymakers. The media, you know, even still now in newspapers. I don't think it easily works in, you know, if you like Twitter, right? Because there's no room for a sustained debate there. Blogs okay. Yeah, but you need, you need a strong media presence and you need a good press that, you know, will engage this debate fully. Thanks, Ron. Well, Giovanni, what it says, and I was surprised too, I was saying it just before the connection falls down, that it's surprised that there are so, that there are just a little industry speaking, so little, yeah. So, and he said that this shows how much we still think too much in terms of research and too little in terms of innovation. And I was asking if this, and I agree with this, but if this depends on the audience we have here, or you think Giovanni, that is a more general issue. So I know you're still here. Yeah. I think that probably, of course, depends on the audience, which is here mainly academic, but still I think it's a bit surprising, because I would expect that people working in RRI have more relations with companies, business, those who bring the innovation to the public. So I still think that it is quite surprising that this part of the innovation system is not seen as very much instrumental in mainstreaming RRI. I mean, I'm very surprised. I see that Raquel says that maybe this has to do with the way the question was made when France would leverage as the RRI community have with industry, well, that's a good point. Giovanni, what do you think about this? Well, I think that if I'm thinking, for instance, of some of the things that have been said yesterday by those who were presenting some of the projects, if you engage with industry and you can show that there is an advantage in taking up the principles of RRI, it is possible to have good support. And industry can be quick and effective in implementing transformations, especially small, medium enterprises that have a more agile structure that they can adopt and commit to these things and make them more visible to the public than academia, which is always a bit remote from the public perception. So I think that if the RRI community interacts more proactively with the business community, with the entrepreneurs and companies, showing that they have something to offer to them, then I don't see the private sector as so conservative. And I think that probably there is more inertia in the research world than there is sometimes in the private sector, which is more used to deal with an environment which is always changing and therefore they are always forced to change. Well, Malcolm says that industry has many other reference points such as corporate social responsibility, SDGs, ESG, many perceived RRI as unnecessary and in some respects naive. RRI must find its place in that context. I agree very much with his observation of Malcolm. I don't know that he would like to add something because actually RRI is a part of a general broader effort in managing changes in the research and innovation system. We have not only corporate responsibility, but we have also a smart specialization industrial district that is a long story or making innovation much larger in creating hybrid structures on networks. So actually, I believe that probably one of the whole in this process is rightly the research organization. I believe that if there is a place for RRI is actually focusing more on academia perhaps and the role of academia has in innovation. I don't know. There is also another question that is related to that that is the future of the territorial RRI because it's another stream we found in the topics and I don't know how to place territorial RRI in this general picture. It is exactly the comment of Claudia that say that this approach could be a reference for establishing at least a territorial level coalitions among different kind of actors of innovation ecosystems. If I could comment. I've been involved in RRI over the past four or five years where I was drawn into two particular projects. First of all, Compass and at the moment I'm involved in living and I'm doing quite a lot of work with industrial partners and also CSR consultants and I say CSR consultants you should think of that in a broader context because the consultants and advisors that I've now been liaising with are now working in that different territory and it's absolutely clear that many more many industrial organizations while CSR is still an important reference point and that itself is evolving. Nevertheless, I'm much more concerned or a lot of them are focused more and more on on the SDGs particularly around sustainability and obviously there's some issues around exactly what's meant by sustainability but there's commercial sustainability there's also sustainability in the environmental context and then you've got was it environment social and governance issues. ESG is a jargon that's now very familiar very commonplace in industry as well and which all of these are coming together for me not under the umbrella term of RRI but under the term responsible innovation and one thing that I have never come to terms with in being involved in the RRI field and with colleagues like yourselves one thing I've never really forgiven the commission for was to to provide those six elements which didn't include safeguarding our environment and quite clearly that is a major element that's pursued in the context of some of these other guidelines some of these other perspectives if you like that to commercial organizations are grappling with and just on the main actors by the way I put forward three the first one was the media for me this the second one was the European Commission because of course they've got influence and you've got the directive which requires for some companies non-financial reporting and the other one was federations of commercial organizations because yes we do have to influence them but and Ron's absolutely right about the the media and their place in this and and what can go wrong if you like if populist voices come to the fore without some I don't know some of the elitism around innovation and science and academia we've got to get rid of some of that as well and actually speak with a different kind of voice that is going to resonate with industrialists and it's going to resonate with the media thank you Malcolm and connected to these also Fabio says quoting Mary Helen that I don't I need to reinforce or will it be our right to reinforce its present in industrial community including including these topics in the PIC could be a good start as as as Merkely Ellen suggested yesterday okay but time is going fast we were already supposed to to close so I will ask each of you a quick final round of comments and then we we can like say each other goodbye well Claudia says that the inclusion of our arrive within technology transfer offices of university can be a good way for me streaming that arrive in the strength companies well working in in in a place where we do also TT I'm not sure about how effective are these offices in doing so because this is a matter of awareness again even in the research for the RRI is domain of a few people still at least in Italian context and I'm not sure that my colleague looking at university start top even though it works with me things that are arrived something useful so probably for for the for its startup they still look at business funding and so on so there's I think that there's the street in this time okay Ellen Marie agree with Claudia about the TTOs and Giovanni say engagement with Indian industry can also be a way of getting a better deal for the public in outcomes of public private partnership yes I could agree with you Giovanni Luciano your microphone no no I was saying that probably it's important taking into consideration what is emerging also in the second the first session parallel session today about the fragility of RRI that is we have not considered taken for granted that RRI could continue that in the same pace that in the past because the support will weaken and probably as we see there are many separation cultural barriers making it very difficult for creating a common view of why RRI we need is needed how to push RRI forward and how to create coalition that is I see that there are many many is an object that risks seems to be also in this consideration that emerged that is is very difficult for for RRI to enter inside the industry world there are barriers at the level of financing that is probably we have to get aware about that the fragility of RRI in this moment and also Raquel stresses the role of industry saying that she means that the RRI community should stop looking at industry as a case studies well that's true and sourcing them as partners or even part of the RRI community yeah probably this one could be another line for shaping us the audience of today's testify these for shaping part of the future of RRI we I really think that we have a lot to do and keep working hard on this and now as Antonia say she has to all the participants on their webcast so we can take a group photo but in the meantime I would like to leave the floor to Raluca for a final greetings because she's part of what we need with fit for RRI and I won't take long I just want to congratulate all of you of course the fit for RRI project but also I was so happy to see representatives for from other RRI projects that I manage here in the research executive agency it was wonderful to hear all of you speaking and so basically just congratulations and see you in horizon Europe thank you Raluca and now all the welcome's gone for a group pictures and in the meanwhile thank you to all the fit for RRI consortium because they did a great job and a coordinator is nothing without a good consortium so the merit is more yours than mine I was just here putting papers together and especially thank you to all the participants because your contribution is what exactly fit for RRI wanted to achieve so starting a further debate on RRI because well as I said on Tuesday the best is yet to come thank you so you can smile one two three thank you all