The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation Showcase Presentation June 16,

| Consultation Workshop Why do we need Responsible Research and Innovation? “Every day, scientific and technological progress contributes new innovation essential to our quality of life and international competitiveness. “However, there are indications that the immense potential of our achievements is out of step with European citizens current needs and aspirations, such as peace, jobs, security and sustainable development of the planet.” Training Workshop European Commission “Science and Society Action Plan” November 2001

| Consultation Workshop EPSRC’s Societal Issues Panel – 2005 onwards 2000 House of Lords report “a new mood for dialogue” and calls for an end to the “deficit model” 2003 GM Nation Debate did not give the “expected” answer EPSRC had to cover other potentially controversial issues – nano- technology, geo-engineering, synthetic biology SIP Chair Robert Winston: “There was an increasing concern about the misuse of science and technology.” Training Workshop

| Consultation Workshop Developing the EPSRC framework Promote … enhancement of social learning Embed integrated, multi-disciplinary approaches Provide a continuous feedback process Ensure ongoing dialogue with policy-makers Embed the concept of responsible science and innovation early on Training Workshop Nicola Goldberg, EPSRC nano- technology portfolio manager Richard Owen, Professor of Responsible Innovation, University of Exeter

| Consultation Workshop Taking the framework through EPSRC Council Support of CEO Delpy vital: “To me RRI conveys something that any good researcher thinks of as part of the research they are undertaking.” Several Council members already interested – “comfortable” with framework-not-regulation approach Training Workshop Dave Delpy, EPSRC former Chief Executive Officer Alison Wall, EPSRC Associate Director for Building Leadership

| Consultation Workshop AREA = Processes to Influence Anticipate – describing and analysing the impacts, intended or otherwise, (for example economic, social, environmental) that might arise. This does not seek to predict but rather to support an exploration of possible impacts and implications that may otherwise remain uncovered and little discussed. Reflect – reflecting on the purposes of, motivations for and potential implications of the research, and the associated uncertainties, areas of ignorance, assumptions, framings, questions, dilemmas and social transformations these may bring. Engage – opening up such visions, impacts and questioning to broader deliberation, dialogue, engagement and debate in an inclusive way. Act – using these processes to influence the direction and trajectory of the research and innovation process itself. Training Workshop

| Consultation Workshop A test case: Synthetic Biology BBSRC / EPSRC public dialogue found: Research Councils have significant governance role Funding “excellent” science should include broader social definition of “excellent” Delpy: “Public not against adventurous research” BBSRC / EPSRC joint call 2013: included relevant social scientists and WPs Owen: “What I have seen in the more recent synthetic biology research proposals is a more flexible, embedded approach – really imaginative, really creative proposals” Training Workshop Doctoral Training Centres: train next generation in RRI

| Consultation Workshop Raising researcher awareness – questions and / or workshops? Initial reaction “You social scientists could not predict the consequences of the personal computer or the internet, so how can we? We are doing some very basic research and who knows what’s going to happen 20 or 30 years down the line?” Training Workshop High-level commitment from project leaders Rose’s team attended lab, PI and “all-hands” meetings Stakeholder workshops Gave rise to several reports on social and ethical issues in synthetic biology Young researchers Want their bugs to cure diseases and help with bio-remediation Nick Rose, King’s College, London

| Consultation Workshop Building on previous practice – the WAM project Training Workshop Public conversations: “WAM is a project which started from asking a question about what would make a transformational difference to someone who is experiencing difficulties in walking” – Nick Tyler, PI Focus groups: issues around friction, chafing and overheating Users: WAM long term; short term benefits to rheumatoid arthritis with wrist supports Industry: Companies pretty open to RI approach – “tricky thing is making sure companies are really engaging … not just using it as a nice paragraph in their CSR report”

| Consultation Workshop So what about industry? Training Workshop SynbiCITE: workshops to ensure that RRI is not just a tick-box exercise Timing: WAM getting interest from Airbus for deformable wings as a “spin-off” from its work

| Consultation Workshop Who should be involved in addressing this challenge? Research community Commercial sector Policy makers Science education sector European citizens and their Civil Society Organisations Training Workshop

| Consultation Workshop Addressing the challenge – an exercise As a research and innovation funding agency, you have issued TWO calls that require proposals to be: more responsive to societal needs and concerns more open to being influenced at an early stage by citizens and civil society organisations more inclusive and generally open more able to address global challenges to which the government has made strong commitments The two areas are Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology. Bearing in mind what you now understand by Responsible Research and Innovation, apart from excellent science and innovation, what else will ask Evaluators to look for if proposals are to be successful Training Workshop

The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation Showcase Presentation for EC Workshop Participants June