1. COLLABORATION FOR RRI
ECSITE SESSION, 24th May 2014
Maria Zolontolosa, Norbert Steinhaus, Ilse Marschalek, Marzia Mazzonetto
Rosina Malagrida.

2. |
Unit of Public Engagement on Health Research:
towards RRI…
Community Advisory Board
Science Communication
Educational programmeBiomedical Research Institute

3. |
Coordinator
Diputy Coordinator
Hubs Coordinator
Technological Partner
WP1 Leader
WP2 Leader
WP4 Leader
WP5 Leader
WP6 Leader
Networks
Hub Leaders
The Management Board
Fostering Responsible Research and Innovation

4. |
COLLABORATION FOR RRI
Are we successful at involving different stakeholders in the
debate on emerging technologies?
At what stage of the research process should stakeholders be
involved?
These issues are part of the new European challenge of
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).

5. |
COLLABORATION FOR RRI
1. Presentation about RRI and key features
2. Presentations: initiatives nanOpinion, PERARES, VOICES.
3. A “World Café” on stakehoder engagement: who, how
(assessing a preliminary checklist), when.
4. Conclusions

6. |
RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH & INNOVATION
5 YEARS AGO AT THE EC
Research for knowledge
Research for challenges
(We need excellent research & socially desirable)
Better solutions to social problems
(co-creation)

7. |
Why?
We need to make sure that the technologies are fulfilling the
moral values of society.
Privacy issue: from macro
level to micro level
Socks with nanoparticles:
Right impact innovation?Value Sensitive Design

8. |
FROM SCIENTISTS RESPONSABILITY
TO COLLECTIVE RESPONSABILITY
(Society into the research process)
Science for and with Society

9. |
Outreach: focused on understanding, informing
Understanding
Dialogue
Science & / in Society

10. |
DEFICIT MODEL

11. |
FROM PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT TO
PUBLICLY ENGAGED
SCIENCE

12. |
REFLECTION
&
CO-CREATION

13. |
FROM DEFICIT
TO DEMOCRACY

14. |
One definition of RRI
cross cutting issue
Science for and with Society
“RRI is a transparent, interactive process, by which societal actors and
innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the
(ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the
innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper
embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)”
Von Schomberg, 2011
And (among others):

15. |
CLIMBING THE LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

16. |
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Engaged publics, engage in discussions, reflections 
empowered people
Responsible actors: actor that has internalised RRI, they
know how to act
Responsible institutions: RRI embedded in institutions

17. |
R&I OUTCOMES
Ethical (shared values and norms, make them explicit,
dilemas, controversies),
Sustainability (environmental protection, social equity, next
generations)
Social desirability (responsive to the needs, visioning where
do we want to go together)
Solutions to societal challenges
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES

18. |
HOW? METHOD?
& Jack Stilgoe, University College London

19. |
AREA:
ANTICIPATE, REFLECT,
ENGAGE, ACT
& Jack Stilgoe, University College London

20. |
ANTICIPATE
• imagining possible & desirable futures
• understanding how present dynamics shape the future
PROCESS REQUIREMENTS: How can we engage?

21. |
REFLECT
• purposes, motivations, values and assumptions
(at individual and institutional level)
Not about talking about risks to make sure there will not be
obstacles to the research…
PROCESS REQUIREMENTS: How can we engage?

22. |
Purposes of innovation.
Why do it? Who might benefit and how?
Will such benefits be equitable?
Will it confer burdens to some or many?
In whose interests is it being undertaken…?
What alternatives to this technology could there be?
Ex. Biofuel- too late, no anticipation
Ex. Synthetic biology- debate in the UK on risks, but what
about benefits? (depend on IP, governance, research…)
Dialogues on hazard/safety
@SujathaRaman2, Univ. Of Nottingham & Jack Stilgoe, UCL
REFLECT: purposes

23. |
ENGAGE
Inclusion: Involvement of wide range of stakeholders (when, who
and how)
Diversity: Variety of interests, values, prespectives, backgrounds.
Meaningful openness: inform but also adapted to make sure it has
meaning.
PROCESS REQUIREMENTS: How can we engage?

24. |
ACT
Responsiveness: listen to different perspectives and being
opened  co-creation and integration
Adaptive change: translation into actions (should be explicit at
the begining)  at individual, institutional and system level

25. |
POLICY AGENDAS

26. |
Policy Agendas (called key dimensions by EC)

27. | 19 Hubs operating in 30 countries

28. |
Take your responsability!
Rosina Malagrida
Deputy coordinator of RRI Tools
Head of Public Engagement on Health Research
IrsiCaixa, Hospital Germans Trias, Barcelona
rmalagrida@irsicaixa.es
www.irsicaixa.es/publicengagement
@RosinaMalagrida

29. |
COLLABORATION FOR RRI
1. Presentation about RRI and key features
2. Presentations: initiatives nanOpinion, PERARES, VOICES.
3. A “World Café” on stakehoder engagement:
who, how (assessing a preliminary checklist), when.
4. Conclusions

30. | WORLD CAFÉ
1. Do you think science centres should promote public discussions on desired
impacts of emerging technologies?
2. Should different stakeholders be more engaged in the decision-making of R&I?
3. Which stakeholder group are being less engaged? (think of subgroups)
4. Should stakeholders be engaged already at the beginning of the process, when the
project is being defined, and then all through the process?
5. Do you agree on the 7 key features that a public engagement exercise should
approach?
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO