We reflect on a decade of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a discourse emerging from the European Commission (EC) 10 years ago. We discuss the foundations for RRI, its emergence during the Seventh Framework programme and its subsequent evolution during Horizon 2020. We discuss how an original vision for RRI became framed around five so-called ‘keys’: gender, open access, science communication, ethics and public engagement. We consider the prospects for RRI within the context of the EC’s Open Science agenda and Horizon Europe programme, before closing with some reflections on the contribution RRI has made to debates concerning the relationship between science, innovation and society over the last decade.

The book provides a synthetic guide to the range of methods that can be employed in social-ecological systems (SES) research. It is primarily targeted at graduate students, lecturers and researchers working on SES, and has been written in a style that is accessible to readers entering the field from a variety of different disciplinary backgrounds. felt about their research and communication.

To address science literacy issues, university faculty have to engage in effective science communication. However, social pressures from peers, administration, or the public may silence their efforts. The purpose of this study was to understand the effect of the spiral of silence on faculty’s engagement with science communication. A survey was distributed to a census of tenure-track faculty at the University of Florida [UF], and the findings did not support the spiral of silence was occurring. However, follow-up interviews revealed faculty did not perceive their peers to value science communication and were more concerned about how the public felt about their research and communication.

In the race to publish papers and secure funding, science can sometimes seem like a competition. But, in reality, modern science relies on open sharing and collaboration. One unexpected aspect of open science is the role it has played in uplifting the careers of myself and my lab members

Open and reproducible research practices increase the reusability and impact of scientific research. The reproducibility of research results is influenced by many factors, most of which can be addressed by improved education and training. Here we describe how workshops developed by the Reproducibility for Everyone (R4E) initiative can be customized to provide researchers at all career stages and across most disciplines with education and training in reproducible research practices. The R4E initiative, which is led by volunteers, has reached more than 3000 researchers worldwide to date, and all workshop materials, including accompanying resources, are available under a CC-BY 4.0 license at https://www.repro4everyone.org/.

Responsible Research and Innovation and Responsible Innovation, as academic endeavours, have grown substantially since their birth in the previous decades. They have been used as synonyms on a structural basis, and both concepts have been studied from various disciplinary backgrounds. This paper discusses the most influential references in chronological order and sheds light on the accumulation of knowledge. The results suggest that Responsible Research and Innovation and Responsible Innovation have matured into an increasingly cumulative and interconnected research trajectory following the footsteps of similar, more mature research areas.

Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this.

Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.

Ideas and examples on how to embed Open Science and RRI public engagment about science using co-creation, public dialogue, gaming, citizen science and art!

The ORION project seeks to promote institutional change in life science research performing and research funding organisations by performing co-creation experiments in three specific areas where stakeholders do not already frequently collaborate; Research strategy and funding, identifying risks and opportunities presented by disruptive technologies and citizen science in fundamental research. The menu of co-creation tools was designed to provide support and ideas to ORION partners and the wider community in facilitating co-creation experiments.

Societal engagement is a key dimension of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), aiming at making science, technology and innovation more transparent, interactive and responsive. Within this article, we identify and discuss the specific requirements and challenges for societal engagement under the heading of RRI along five dimensions. First, engagement aims at shaping research and innovation in a socially robust manner.

Pandemic is a term that designates an epidemiological trend. Indicates that many outbreaks are happening at the same time and spread everywhere. But such outbreaks are not the same. Each of them can have intensities, qualities and forms of injury very different and establishes relationships with socioeconomic, cultural,environmental, collective or even individual. A pandemic can even become event on a global scale. This is the case with Covid-19.

This guide explains how to operationalize inclusion of women, Indigenous Peoples and other under-represented groups in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs).

Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.

The aim of this special issue on science communication is to inspire and help scientists who are taking part or want to take part in science communication and engage with the wider public, clinicians, other scientists or policy makers. For this, some articles provide concise and accessible advice to individual scientists, science networks, or learned societies on how to communicate effectively; others share rationales, objectives and aims, experiences, implementation strategies and resources derived from existing long-term science communication initiatives.

Non-native invasive species frequently appear in urban and non-urban ecosystems and may become a threat to biodiversity. Some of these newcomers are introduced accidentally, and others are introduced through a sequence of events caused by conscious human decisions. Involving the general public in biodiversity preservation activities could prevent the negative consequences of these actions. Accurate and reliable data collecting is the first step in invasive species management, and citizen science can be a useful tool to collect data and engage the public in science. We present a case study of biological recording of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle) using a participatory citizen model.

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

COVID-19 recovery: science isn't enough to save us. Policymakers need insight from humanities and social sciences to tackle the pandemic.

This is a report from the EU-funded project SISCODE, in the shape of a Deliverable, that identifies, records and compares previous and ongoing EU framework initiatives and projects which have developed and tested relevant RRI approaches and methodologies.

This report presents the results of the work of the expert group on Policy indicators for RRI. It contains three parts: first a conceptual introduction of RRI; second a detailed review of possible indicators in eight key areas for RRI policy; and third a number of concrete proposals for indicator design and implementation.

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process.

This document contains a Map of Approaches, Policies and Tools for Territorial RRI (from now on, the Map) that can be used, together with the results of other already available mapping exercises, for designing and implementing the five TeRRItoria Transformative Experiments.

This document represents an inventory of 43 RRI Governance Innovation Practices (RRIGIPs), detected in RRI projects conducted in Europe and beyond.

The STAGES Guidelines aim to contribute to this process of deriving new insights about the actual implementation process of gender equality-oriented projects in scientific institutions.

STAGES involved the continuous monitoring, evaluation and cross-cutting analysis of the process activated in each institution in order to draw some conclusions, both to support implementation and to feed these final Guidelines.

Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation

Analysing facilitating and hindering factors for implementing gender equality interventions in R&I: Structures and processes

Setting up a dynamic framework to activate gender equality structural transformation in research organizations

Scoping-Involving-Planning-Testing-Disseminating

PPT from the EU-Project Orion Open Science that shares the nuts and bolts of Citizen Science.

PPT from the EU-Project Orion Open Science showing the differences between Open Data and Fair Data, and related topics.

An RRI model for research organisations in the Biosciences

Responsible research and innovation for the conservation of biodiversity
By Elena Buzan

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.