1. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation Showcase Model Presentations for Trainers and Trainees Version of June 16, 2016

2. The Purposes of this Presentation
First “Train the Trainers” Workshop
The Purposes of this Presentation
This presentation is an exemplar of how we might use a showcase to train trainees and train trainers
First part acts as a “model” presentation of an RRI “Showcase” that can be used or adapted as required
Second part acts as an introduction to Issues for Trainers
Third part acts as a “How to Build your own Showcase”
Parts to be used as required

3. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation Showcase Model Presentation for Trainees Version of June 16, 2016

4. Why do we need Responsible Research and Innovation?
Training 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.”
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge
European Commission “Science and Society Action Plan”
November 2001

5. Who should be involved in addressing this challenge?
Training 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
For the purposes of this workshop, we have divided you in these five groups

6. Addressing the challenge
Training Workshop
Addressing the challenge
One of the country’s leading research funding bodies / councils has called a meeting of various “stakeholders” to discuss making itself and its research and innovation community:
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
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

7. Who should be involved in addressing this challenge?
Training Workshop
Who should be involved in addressing this challenge?
Research community – primary responsibility
Commercial sector – secondary responsibility
Policy makers – primary responsibility
Science education sector – secondary responsibility
Civil Society Organisations – secondary responsibility

8. Your “stakeholder” group meeting
Training Workshop
Your “stakeholder” group meeting
The research council’s goal is to agree a simple scheme to guide its researchers, as well as to lead to a societally responsible relationship with its industrial and commercial partners.
You are “representatives” of your stakeholder group invited to the research council’s meeting, and you are getting together a few days before that meeting:
decide on two key positive inputs your group can make towards this goal
agree on one key “sticking point” that would make it impossible to reach agreement. Note: this should be written down and kept private to the group until later
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

9. Your “stakeholder” group meeting
Training Workshop
Your “stakeholder” group meeting
QUESTIONS?
PLEASE BREAK INTO STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

10. The research council’s meeting – stakeholder representatives
Training Workshop
The research council’s meeting – stakeholder representatives
The aim of the research council is now to come up with a list of no more than 10 key features for its scheme for RRI. The meeting will be chaired by a research council senior representative
As “representatives” of your stakeholder you will be part of the discussion of this new RRI “framework”.
You should bring to the discussion your two positive inputs, although they may not necessarily be included in the final scheme
Without necessarily revealing its exact nature, you should argue in such a way that your “sticking point” is addressed
AT END MEETING – GROUP STICKING POINTS SHOULD BE REVEALED
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

11. The research council’s meeting – Chair’s role
Training Workshop
The research council’s meeting – Chair’s role
The aim of the research council is now to come up with a list of no more than 10 key features for its scheme for RRI. The meeting will be chaired by a research council senior representative
As the Chair, you should:
Enable stakeholder representatives to be heard
Ensure others listen as well as talk
Remember – the research council also has a viewpoint
Try to reach a consensus on your list / framework
Go for majorities where you cannot – veto only if you really have to
AT END MEETING – have your framework ready to present to plenary session
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

12. The research council’s meeting
Training Workshop
The research council’s meeting
QUESTIONS?
PLEASE BREAK INTO RESEARCH COUNCIL MEETING GROUPS
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

13. Plenary report back meeting – first report(s)
Training Workshop
Plenary report back meeting – first report(s)
By the end of the “research council meeting”, there should be one or more lists of RRI framework key features.
For each “meeting”, Chair please present these now – compare and contrast as necessary
Each meeting Chair should report on the following questions:
Ease of reaching agreement
Did any stakeholder group feel their “sticking point” was still a deal-breaker?
If so, why?
Who else could usefully have been at the meeting?
Anything other points
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

14. Plenary report back meeting – second reports
Training Workshop
Plenary report back meeting – second reports
Following the first report(s) back to the meeting, the individual stakeholder groups should reflect and report on:
Your ease of reaching agreement on positive inputs and sticking points
Usefulness of stakeholder group discussion as preparation for research council meeting
Fairness of research council meeting towards their inputs and interests
Appropriateness of your “stakeholder group”
Any other points
I am going to show you a quotation:
Does anyone recognise this?
So let’s look at this as a challenge

15. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation – the story

16. EPSRC’s Societal Issues Panel – 2005 onwards
Training 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.”

17. Developing the EPSRC framework - 2010
Training Workshop
Developing the EPSRC framework
Richard Owen, Professor of Responsible Innovation,
University of Exeter
Nicola Goldberg, EPSRC nano-technology portfolio manager
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

18. Taking the framework through EPSRC Council - 2012
Training Workshop
Taking the framework through EPSRC Council
Alison Wall, EPSRC Associate Director for Building Leadership
Dave Delpy, EPSRC former Chief Executive Officer
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

19. AREA = Processes to Influence
Training 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.

20. A test case: Synthetic Biology
Training 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”
Doctoral Training Centres: train next generation in RRI

21. Raising researcher awareness – questions and / or workshops?
Training 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?”
Nick Rose, King’s College, London
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

22. Building on previous practice – the WAM project
Training Workshop
Building on previous practice – the WAM project
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”

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

24. What does the EPSRC showcase raise for RRI?
Training Workshop
What does the EPSRC showcase raise for RRI?
FILL IN THIS SLIDE WITH POINTS FROM TRAINEES
COMPARE WITH SECTION 2.9 IF REQUIRED

25. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation Showcase Model Presentation for Trainees Version of June 16, 2016

26. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation – issues for Trainers

27. Some Key Challenges for Training in RRI
“Train the Trainers” Workshop
Some Key Challenges for Training in RRI
RRI covers multiple agendas, multiple and (often) ill-defined or uncertain outcomes, and involves several processes
RRI covers multiple stakeholders, whose interests are not always going to be aligned
If genuinely implemented – not tick-box – RRI implies deep culture change for many partners and participants
Both starting point and desired final point may be unclear

28. Some Key Challenges for Training in RRI
“Train the Trainers” Workshop
Some Key Challenges for Training in RRI
- OTHER POINTS
RRI covers multiple agendas, multiple and (often) ill-defined or uncertain outcomes, and involves several processes
EPSRC showcase designed to cover processesoutcomes – PLUS?
RRI covers multiple stakeholders, whose interests are not always going to be aligned
EPSRC mainly researchers and policymakers – DO OTHERS BENEFIT?
If genuinely implemented – not tick-box – RRI implies deep culture change for many partners and participants
EPSRC “framework approach” – CULTURE CHANGE?
Both starting point and desired final point may be unclear
So are they any clearer as a result of this showcase – IF SO, HOW?
PLEASE COMPARE WITH SECTION 2.9

29. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation – do-it-yourself

30. Building the EPSRC showcase
Came out of realisation that what was already available did not really bring RRI to life
Story-telling NOT detailed socio-historical investigation
Wanted a story that illuminates some aspects of RRI – NOT necessarily all
Do NOT under-estimate the time required – weeks and months, not days, especially dependant on getting key people and documents

31. The EPSRC showcase sections
Introduction – a quick glance should tell a trainer if they want to use this or not
THE story told by the actors – and a few lessons you draw out
Issues for Trainers – remember that someone may want to use this in two years’ time and you will not be there
So how did you envisage it being used? – workshop / online course exercises
… and did you find any useful additional resources? – encourages “original” investigation & self-learning

32. The story’s the thing – how to get it
Interviews – video and audio
Documents – can you get the internal ones?

33. The EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innovation
THANKS