Philip Macnaghten, Auke Pols &

David LudwigOpening up a dialogue

The challenge of responsibility in research and (technological)

innovation

Responsibility 1.0: Reliable knowledge (with integrity)Robert Merton, 1942: To produce reliable knowledge accomplished by enforcing institutional norms (CUDOS)

• Communalism• all scientists should have common ownership

• Universalism• scientific validity is independent of status

• Disinterestedness• scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common

scientific enterprise

• Organised Skepticism• scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny

Associated with the linear model

• Innovation seen as inherently steerless and ‘good’

• Basic scientists do not and should not consider applications

• But applications will emerge from basic science

• And the nations that support the basic science will gain economic rewards

• Macro-economic justification of Research and Innovation

Basicscience

Applied science

Technological development

New products and services Prosperity!

Responsibility 2.0: Science for society“Recalling the notion of a social contract, it ….it embraces and invites all actors to invest great efforts and to coordinate with each other in solving a concrete problem…. it is not by accident that its semantics are related to and rooted in the sphere of sports.”(Klink and Kaldewey 2018)

The Grand Challenge Scientist• Interdisciplinary, organized in teams, long-term and

large scale research goals, competitive

Responsibility 3.0: Science with and for Society (responsible innovation)

“a way to open up research and innovation activities, allowing all societal actors to work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the

process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society” (European Commission 2013)

“taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present”

(Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten 2013)

RRI Practice

The aim• To analyse … pathways to RRI implementation…

in research performing and funding organisations ... that can be scaled up at European and global levels

• The organisations

• The framework(s)

6

WUR - Main question

How can RRI enable Wageningen University and Research to realise its ambition?

7

WUR Review and Outlook

WUR Review● How is responsibility conceptualised at WUR?● How well do WUR’s research processes incorporate anticipation,

inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness?● How does WUR promote the RRI keys: ethics, gender, open access,

public engagement and science education?WUR Outlook

● What recommendations can we make on the basis of the review?

8

WUR Review and Outlook - method• 25 interviews at the science groups,

corporate departments and library;• 1 focus group;• >25 WUR policy documents studied (e.g.

annual report).

Responsibility 1.0: Scientific integrity at WUR

• Honesty• Scrupulousness• Transparency• Independence• Responsibility

– “Responsibility means, among other things, acknowledging the fact that a researcher does not operate in isolation and hence taking into consideration – within reasonable limits – the legitimate interests of human and animal test subjects, as well as those of commissioning parties, funding bodies and the environment. Responsibility also means conducting research that is scientifically and/or societally relevant.”

Scientific integrity at WUR (since 2014)

• Scrupulousness• Reliability• Independence• Social responsibility

• Place importance on dealing responsibly with nature and the living environment. They are aware of the importance of animal welfare, and take this into account;

• Respect human rights in their work at all times. • Treat test subjects and laboratory animals with integrity in

their research. • Are aware of the possible consequences of the application

of research results on a higher aggregate level than the system studied.

• Are aware of the social effects of their work and act accordingly.”

Is it sufficient?

Reproducibility Crisis in Science

• Survey of Nature (2016): 70 percent could not reproduce data of colleagues)- ‘Science goes Wrong’: 90 percent of clinical trials ‘fail’

Productivity Crisis in Science:

• The number of drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) per US dollars(inflation-adjusted) spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950 (Bountra et al, 2017).

Responsibility 2.0: Science for society‘WUR is already embracing “responsibility” as an organizing concept while interpreting its responsibilities through contributions to solving global challenges from climate change and global health to food security and animal welfare’

WUR Review - strengths

• Responsibility at WUR is mostly about addressing global societal challenges.

• Of the AIRR dimensions, inclusion receives most attention at WUR.

• Multidisciplinary research / natural and social sciences; fundamental (WU) and applied (WR) research; business and societal stakeholders.

14

Responsibility 3.0: Global challenges

“WUR provides the highest quality knowledge, education and research to address global challenges and to design and accelerate required transitions.” (Strategic Plan, p. 9: ‘our ambition’).

The goal is clear – but what is the method?

Is the way in which we do research up to this task?

15

Challenge (1)

Many of the ‘global societal challenges’ in WUR’s domain are treated as tame problems.

● One clear problem and solution

● To be solved by autonomous experts.

However, most are really wicked problems.

● No single correct formulation or solution

● Value disagreements

● ‘Simple’ solutions give rise to new problems.

16

Addressing the challenge

• RRI has been developed to make science more self-reflective and help align it with societal needs and values

• This makes it a useful method to deal with wicked problems

• Research processes (and WUR scientists) need to cultivate skills in anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness (AIRR)

17

WUR Review – challenge (2)

There is a mismatch between WUR’s mission and its approach to its realisation

• Formal reward mechanisms focus mostly on publications and grants obtained

• Inclusion, reflection, etc. initiatives remain local, subordinate to research and teaching

18

WUR Outlook – recommendations for discussion

• Embed RRI in WUR’s research strategy and priorities

• Include societal value creation criteria and indicators in formal reward mechanisms for researchers

• Create an institutional home for RRI / public engagement activities within one of WUR’s Corporate departments

• Introduce a mandatory course on Responsible Research and Innovation, including but not limited to scientific integrity and societal engagement, for PhD researchers

• Adopt a policy for responsible partnerships

• Develop a WUR dialogue on technological innovation (e.g. CRISPR) as a ‘wicked’ issue (and what this means for inclusion/ collaboration, including the role of the social scientists and the role of the university as an honest broker)

19

20