Conference Report - Science in Dialogue

8122019 Conference Report - Science in Dialogue

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 142



PREFACEby Morten Oslashstergaard Danish Ministerfor Science Innovation and Higher Education 3

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE 4

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS 6

MESSAGE DELIVERED AT THE CONFERENCEby Maacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn European Commissionerfor Research Innovation and Science 10

CONFERENCE SUMMARYby Jack Stilgoe conference rapporteur 12

SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 17

WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Scienceand its Publics

WORKSHOP 2Ethics and Emerging Technologies

WORKSHOP 3Inclusive and Open Innovation

WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures

WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics

SUGGESTIONS

produced by conference participants 23

Design BGRAPHICPhotos Lars Skaaning and ConsensusOnline

ISBN 978-87-92776-52-5

For further information on the conference report

contact sidfidk

Videos pictures and other conference documentationcan be seen at wwwscienceindialoguedk

CONTENTS



The Best Science for the World

Research and innovation activities do not exist in avacuum Rather they are part of society and have ahuge influence on the way we act think and organiseour communities at both local and global levels ndash as wellas an enormous impact on our ability to create prosperityand progress This means that there is a need to discussthe role we would like science to play in society ndash andthe role we would like society to play in science Weneed to shift the focus from aspiring to creating the bestscience in the world to aspiring to creating the bestscience for the world

The presidency conference ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo marked

a welcome and needed shift in this direction Under thesubheading ldquoTowards a European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovationrdquo the conference did exactlythat ndash discuss how the relationship between science andsociety can be strengthened and become more productiveto the benefit of both science and society

While dialogue and cooperation are in themselves greatand can help improve our understanding of complexissues or our grasp of ethical dilemmas the ideaof responsible research and innovation is also aboutincreasing the quality of our investments in science

The probability of scientific results being relevant robustand having a positive impact on society will increaseif a sense of scientific social responsibility and respons-iveness to societyrsquos concerns and wishes can be fosteredndash and increased dialogue is one way of achieving this

The same is true when we talk about the large amount ofresearch and innovation that is carried out in the privatesector The likelihood of new products and technologiesbeing successful increases if they are developed onthe basis of a sound understanding of public needs andconcerns As such an open and inclusive approach basedon dialogue between different sectors will help Europe

heighten its innovative capacity

I was pleased to see that representatives of manydifferent sectors had found their way to Denmark forthe conference ndash industry universities science com-municators civil society organisations authoritiesand political bodies An important message fromthe conference was the need to promote cooperationbetween different sectors

Another key message was the need to embed the conceptof responsible research and innovation at the politicallevel Much can be done at this level to enhance theresponsibility aspect in the way we approach and builda framework around research and innovation Possibleways of doing so could be to consult stakeholders via

public consultation when we identify research areas ofstrategic importance to make public access to researchresults a precondition for EU funding or to invite actorsfrom different sectors of society to participate in advisorygroups when governance structures of research fundingprogrammes are being developed

On 31 May 2012 the Danish Presidency obtaineda general agreement in the European Council on thestructure and main line of activities in the next Europeanfunding programme for research and innovation ndashHorizon 2020 The agreement defines the relationshipbetween science and society and the promotion of

Responsible Research and Innovation as one of thecross-cutting issues in the programme In the comingyear the particularities of Horizon 2020 will be fleshedout This is a great opportunity to anchor the concept ofsciencersquos social responsibility in a concrete frameworkI strongly believe that the idea of science and societybeing connected by a mutual responsibility is somethingthat should not be limited to certain scientific disciplinesRather it should be a foundation that permeates allactivities in research and innovation As such I wouldencourage a final lay-out of Horizon 2020 that promotesthis line of thinking across the whole framework pro-

gramme

While much can be done at organisational and structurallevels to foster responsible research and innovationI would like to stress that the mindset of responsibilitystarts with the individual researcher or innovator Wehave come a long way in past years but there is still roomfor improvement The quality and relevance of researchin areas such as new medicine or sustainable energywill be heightened if research is carried out in dialoguewith the end users of new technologies with authoritiesand with stakeholders Informal platforms such asscience shops consultation or public meetings between

researchers private companies and the wider societycould be developed to this end

I encourage researchers to engage in society to beopen to dialogue and to have an eye for public concernsand ambitions ndash all with the ambition of building betterscience for the world

MORTEN OslashSTERGAARDDanish Minister for ScienceInnovation and Higher Education

PREFACE

PAGE 3



Euroscience Open Forum 201421-26 JUNE 2014 COPENHAGEN SCIENCE BUILDING BRIDGES

The Danish focus on science in dialogue will continue at EuroscienceOpen Forum 2014 in Copenhagen

From 21-26 June 2014 international researchers policymakers studentsentrepreneurs and science media will gather in Copenhagen to take partin ESOF 2014 Europersquos largest general science conference

The ambitious goal of ESOF 2014 is to elevate and further develop a model ofResponsible Research and Innovation and to take science-society interactionsto the heart of the scientific community in Europe and globally

For futher information visit wwwesof2014org

The conference ldquoScience in Dialogue ndash Towards aEuropean Model for Responsible Research and Inno-vationrdquo took place from 23 to 25 April 2012 as partof the Danish EU Presidency

The conference was organised by the Danish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Higher Education with assistancefrom the think tank DEA It was hosted by the Universityof Southern Denmark in Odense

A total of 160 delegates from all over Europe participatedin the conference and more than 35 highly qualifiedspeakers had been invited to speak or debate at the

conference The goal was to further a mutual under-standing by presenting viewpoints and examples fromvarious sectors such as government universitiesindustry NGOs and science communication

Encouraging dialogue was a specific objective of theconference and the conference format itself supportedthis During all plenary sessions iPads were distributedto the conference participants This allowed them to

easily take part in the panel debates by typing commentsand questions that everybody in the auditorium could seeand respond to which ensured a high level of interactionbetween the conference participants and panellists orspeakers

iPads were also used as a working tool during theworkshops that took place on the second conference dayThis made it possible for the workshop participants tosplit up into small working groups while still exchangingknowledge and ideas within the large workshop group

No conference conclusions or recommendations had

been drafted before the conference and the workshopswere designed to let the conference participants developideas and suggestions for action within specific topicssuch as ethics and emerging technologies or engagingstakeholders in research agendas

The suggestions produced by the conference participantshave also been included in the conference report

About the conference

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 4



About the conference participants

Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2

26

6

53

13

ere o you ve

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Other

Private sector

Public research institution

Media

Government

7

4

11

48

3

26

n w c sector are you emp oye

When asked about their expectations to the conference thesewere some of the answers given by the conference participants

ndash A better picture of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovationndash I would like to see some new concrete inputideas on how we can

ensure a better interaction between Horizon 2020 and society

ndash I would like ideas on empowering citizens to influence research

ndash I want to get new ideas for designing the next science communicationprogramme in my country

ndash Beyond words

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5



THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

PAGE 6PAGE 6


The conference as it happenedCONFERENCE DAY 123 APRIL 2012The conference was moderated by BBC Science Journalist Quentin Cooper

WELCOME AND OPENING SESSION

JENS ODDERSHEDE Vice-Chancellor at University of Southern Denmark

MORTEN OslashSTERGAARD Danish Minister for Science Innovation and Higher Education

MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science(video message)

PANEL DEBATEWhat Does it Mean to be Responsible in Research and Innovation

JOHN CROWLEY Chief of Division of Ethics Science and Society UNESCO

ROBERT LEE Professor and Head of the ESRC Centre for Business Relationships AccountabilitySustainability and Society

JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow University of Exeter

RENEacute VON SCHOMBERG Dr DrPhil Ethics and Gender Unit DG Research and InnovationEuropean Commission

PAOLO FIORINI Professor at University of Verona and Director of Surgica Robotica SpA

PANEL DEBATEEngaging Stakeholders ndash What are the Potential Benefits

and Main Challenges

PETER HOslashNGAARD ANDERSEN Dr and Senior Vice President H Lundbeck ASExternal Scientific Relations amp Patents

ULRIKE FELT Professor at the Department of Social Studies of Science University of Vienna

LINDA NIELSEN Professor at the Faculty of Law University of Copenhagen

RICHARD SCLOVE PhD and Director of Mind amp Life Institute (US)

PRESENTATIONTrends and Patterns of Science in Society Across Europe

NIELS MEJLGAARD Dr and Director of the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research PolicyAarhus University

Short reflection on the dayrsquos discussions

By conference rapporteur Jack Stilgoe Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

Informal reception with the interactive installationldquoKaleidoscoperdquo presented by the Centre for Art and ScienceUniversity of Southern Denmark




PAGE 7PAGE 7


CONFERENCE DAY 224 April 2012

PRESENTATIONScience in Dialogue Why When How

ALAN IRWIN Professor and Dean of Research at Copenhagen Business School

Introduction to the participatory workshop sessions

STINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA

WORKSHOP 1

Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its PublicsWorkshop chairMAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of Copenhagen

Workshop speakersJEAN983085PIERRE ALIX Chair of the ESF Forum on Science in Society

SOslashREN HARNOW KLAUSEN Professor dr phil University of Southern Denmark andthe Danish Council for Independent Research ndash Humanities

ALEXANDER GERBER Information Scientist and Director at INNOCOMM Research Centrefor Science and Innovation Communication


Workshop chairJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

Workshop speakersŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department of Political Science University of Latvia

CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communications amp Government Relations BASF

WORKSHOP 3

Inclusive and Open Innovation

Workshop chairARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of Science Tecnology and Society University of Twente

Workshop speakersLARS KLUumlVER Director of Secretariat Danish Board of Technology

INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Head of Unit Women and Science UnitSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister

PRATEEK SUREKA Researcher Big Innovation Centre




PAGE 8PAGE 8



Workshop chairANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex University STEPS ndash SocialTechnological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability

Workshop speakersKAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Director at the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark

HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at the Danish Agency for ScienceTechnology and Innovation

ROBBERT DROOP Policy Coordinator Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Researchand Politics

Workshop chairSTINA VRANG ELIAS CEO of Danish think tank DEA

Workshop speakers

MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative Fisheries Management Aalborg University and GAP2 participantPIERRE-BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA)France

EXHIBITIONPresentation of projects and initiatives

This session was dedicated to the exhibition area with presentations of projectsinitiatives and best practice




PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS

PANEL DEBATE Constituents of a Future European Model for ResponsibleResearch and Innovation ndash based on the workshop findings

ELKE ANKLAM Director of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionEuropean Commission

MARC DURANDO Executive Director of European Schoolnet

THOMAS GROSFELD Senior Advisor Innovation Policy and Higher Education VNO-NCW

MAJA HORST Head of the Department of Media Cognition and Communication University of Copenhagen

BRITTA THOMSEN Member of the European Parliament

PRESENTATIONInteraction between Research Innovation and Societyin a Horizon 2020-perspective

TERESA RIERA MADURELL Member of the European Parliament

PRESENTATIONPERARES Project and the 5th Living KnowledgeConference in Bonn May 10-12

HENK MULDER Dr Faculty of Sciences University of Groningen

PRESENTATIONSEuroscience Open Forum 2012 and 2014

PATRICK CUNNINGHAM Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2012and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government

KLAUS BOCK Professor Champion of Euroscience Open Forum 2014 andChairman of the Danish National Research Foundation

CLOSING SESSION AND END OF CONFERENCE

Conference RapporteurJACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at University of Exeter Business School

OCTAVI QUINTANA983085TRIAS Director for DG Research and Innovation European Commission


PAGE 9




Message delivered at the conferenceby MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINN European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science

The dialogue between science and the restof society has never been more importantAs the Europe 2020 Strategy makes clear to overcomethe current economic crisis we need to create a smartergreener economy where our prosperity will come fromresearch and innovation Science is the basis for a betterfuture and the bedrock of a knowledge-based societyand a healthy economy

In the search for prosperity jobs and a better life foreveryone research innovation and new technologiespresent us with many different choices and many possiblepaths to follow

Researchers policy makers business people innovatorsand most of all the general public have difficult choicesto make as regards how science and technology can helptackle our different societal challenges ndash whether climatechange healthy ageing or sustainable management ofour resources to name but a few

After ten years of action at EU level to develop andpromote the role of science in society at least one thingis very clear we can only find the right answers to thechallenges we face by involving as many stakeholdersas possible in the research and innovation processResearch and innovation must respond to the needsand ambitions of society reflect its values and beresponsible To my mind there are a number of keysto doing this

The first key is to engage people and civil societyorganisations in the research and innovation processWe know that solutions to the grand challenges we facecannot be purely technological Innovations also comefrom the creativity of nonspecialists and civil societyorganisations working with researchers businessesand policy makers Different perspectives bring differentand sometimes better solutions

All relevant actors should be on board women as wellas men The second key therefore is lsquogenderrsquo It is bothunfair and economically unwise to squander any of ourtalents female or male We need women at all levels of

the research hierarchy and we also need to ask ourselvesif the gender perspective is relevant when developingproducts processes and services

Our economy needs more researchers and innovatorsand an increasingly technological world means peopleneed to be better informed about science issues Thisis why the third key excellent science education is soimportant We will educate more researchers and thegeneral public will be in a better position to understandand engage in debate on the most important scienceissues affecting society

A fourth key is open access to scientific information andresearch results funded by public money The fruits ofpublicly-funded research should be more easily availableto other researchers and innovators We are already

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10



testing an open access pilot under the 7th FrameworkProgramme and will expand this approach under Horizon2020

The fifth key is ethics Surveys have shown that thegeneral public wants developments in researchtechnology and innovation to be guided by the principlesof trust integrity and participation More specificallypeople also want to be involved where possible indecisions regarding new technologies when culturalenvironmental social and ethical values come into play

The sixth key is our duty as policy-makers to shape

a governance framework that encourages responsibleresearch and innovation Policymakers also have aresponsibility to prevent harmful or unethical develop-ments in research and innovation for example by usingethics reviews and audits as we do in the 7th FrameworkProgramme for Research

We can only achieve all these goals if we have the helpof stakeholders That is why a forum for discussion likethe ldquoScience in Dialoguerdquo conference is so importantso I would like to thank the Danish Presidency andthe conference organisers for creating this event

We have tried to engage as many stakeholdersas possible in the development of our Horizon 2020proposals During the extensive public consultationwe received inputs from governments researchorganisations businesses civil society organisationspolicy-makers and individuals

Horizon 2020 will support the six keys to responsibleresearch and innovation that I just mentioned and willhighlight responsible research and societal engagementthroughout the programme We will take every opportu-nity to get science professionals and interested citizenstalking and working together

In addition this summer the Commission will proposea framework for the European Research Area whereissues such as Open Access and Gender equality inresearch content will be addressed

None of those initiatives would be possible without

the commitment of the ldquoScience in Societyrdquo communitythat has been growing in recent years

I have great expectations for the Science in Dialogueconference and we will do our best to integrate your goodideas into our policies and actions to ensure responsibleresearch and innovation in Europe

Thank you

MAacuteIRE GEOGHEGAN983085QUINNEuropean Commissioner forResearch Innovation and Science

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary

by Conference Rapporteur Dr JACK STILGOE

Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter

Science is instinctively conversational It is a conversationbetween what is known and what is unknown betweenfacts and ideas between needs and possibilities Ifscience is to proceed responsibly there must alsocrucially be a set of conversations with society morewidely about the risks benefits uncertainties anddirections of science

As Europe sets the course for the next multi-year

framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 these conversations have never been moreimportant Horizon 2020 marks a departure from previousEuropean framework programmes with its adoption ofso-called lsquoGrand Challengesrsquo Tackling these big societalproblems from food security to climate change fromhealthy ageing to clean energy require new policies andnew forms of dialogue at European and Member Statelevels as well as the involvement of stakeholders inresearch and innovation processes as CommissionerMaacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn stated in her video message

It is appropriate that our conversations took place inDenmark ndash a country that though it doesnrsquot like to boastnevertheless boasts a strong heritage of open dialogueabout a range of policy issues not least those involvingscience and technology Opening the conference MortenOslashstergaard the Danish Minister for Science Innovationand Higher Education eloquently described the need toshift our thinking towards ldquothe best science for the worldrdquoand not just ldquothe best science in the worldrdquo

Responsible Research and Innovation

The conference took as its focus the idea of lsquoResponsibleResearch and Innovationrsquo While there is still plenty todo in terms of working out what this means in practicethe phrase seems to provide a useful focus for debateConferences on lsquoscience and societyrsquo have in the pastsuffered from a lack of focus Some participants cometo discuss science in schools Others expect to hearabout science museums while others are interestedin how we govern science and innovation themselvesAt this conference in Odense the emphasis was clearlyon the latter

A stellar cast of speakers ranging from leading acade-mics in Science and Technology Studies to corporaterepresentatives and policymakers described theirinsights and experiences of trying to make researchand innovation more responsible We heard how debatesabout technologies including genetically modified cropsstem cells nanotechnology and synthetic biology hadrevealed a huge amount about the social context ofscience although as Richard Sclove discussed weshould not obsess about particular technologies Theissues that are revealed when we initiate and encouragesuch dialogue are essentially political They are aboutwhat world we want to live in and how science and

innovation can play a role in bringing it about

As EU policymakers rethink their approach to researchand innovation they should first recognise the extra-ordinary progress made towards a genuinely dialogicrelationship between science and society Maja Horstwho has been involved in a number of Danish dialogueexercises reminded the conference how far we had comein relatively little time The culture of science is stubbornand yet the way in which science is discussed now bypolicymakers scientists and others has changedremarkably over the last 30 years

Comment made via iPad during the conference

NGOrsquos innovators and busi-nesses should work togetherto address the grand challengeswith meaningful productsCitizens should go beyondtheir consumer role andexercise their citizensrsquo rightsin science and technology

How could funding pro-grams be constructed tofurther responsibility inresearch and innovation

Question made via iPad during the conference

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12



There is now a widespread appreciation that scienceis too important to be left to scientists alone Scientistsincreasingly recognise that members of the public andcivil society are not only legitimate voices in the debatebut they may also be useful resources for inspiring andmotivating research and innovation Linda Nielsen toldthe conference that 30 years ago many scientists wereuninterested in or dismissive of questions of ethicsMost now recognise that it underpins their licenceto operate

We must not be complacent however As Andy Stirlingexplained what might look at first like an open dialogue

can disguise attempts to close down public debate Thereis still work to be done in persuading those policymakersthat remain sceptical that dialogue can open up newpossibilities Stirling and Alan Irwin both used theexample of wind turbines which began as a dissident

industry in Denmark addressing a particular societalneed But over time with the support of policy windenergy has grown into an important source of competitiveadvantage for the country

Setting the Agenda togetherThis example gets us to the heart of ResponsibleResearch and Innovation The idea is that we canresponsibly shape research and innovation to takebetter care of the future What this means in practicewill be very different across different areas of researchand in different national contexts It is not the sortof thing that can be imposed on scientists from

the top down Instead it needs to be nurtured fromthe bottom up

The conference provided an important forum in whichto start this process There is always a danger onsuch occasions that discussions narrow down to thosewho have been asked to speak and a vocal minorityin the audience Thankfully we had some innovativeopportunities to broaden things out First participantscould contribute their thoughts throughout via the iPadsthat peppered the hall The questions and insights thatcame through electronically were refreshingly honest

People were clear about what they wanted fromthe conference and what was missing Secondly theconference had at its centre a set of day-long workshopsThese provided an opportunity for participants tocollaboratively shape a Responsible Research andInnovation agenda

The workshop outputs as can be seen on pages 24-40are wide-ranging but they are concrete rigorous andshould be of interest to a range of policymakers

Who should be responsiblefor developing institutionsfor bringing stakeholderstogether Is this a nationalor collective Europeanobligation


Conference Moderator Quentin Cooper BBCdemonstrating the iPads

Exhibition stand at the conference Conference Rapporteur Jack Stilgoe

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13



Under its Science and Society programme the EuropeanCommission has supported a diverse range of activitiesthat have immeasurably strengthened the dialoguebetween science and society The conference heardfrom initiatives such as the Living Knowledge networkof science shops which has on a meagre budget begunto change the culture of European universities and enablenew forms of research We heard from the MASIS project(Monitoring Activities in Science in Society) which hassurveyed the European policy landscape The map isvaried When it comes to public engagement with sciencein Europe there are areas of lush fertile ground andthere are deserts In those countries where dialogue

is well-embedded such as the UK and Denmark newquestions have been injected into public debate Thesequestions are typically about the products processesand purposes of research the questions that define whatResponsible Research and Innovation look like

The Notion of ResponsivenessCentral to the idea of responsibility is the notion ofresponsiveness ndash the ability of individuals and institutionsto do things differently in the light of social and ethicalconcerns needs and ambitions The challenge is nowto organise policy and research to offer answers to

questions of responsibility and to better anchor scienceand innovation activities in society Some of the keymessages from the conference in this regard were

ndash The concept of Responsible Research and Innovationwhich emphasises sciencersquos social responsibilityshould be widely used in the development of Horizon2020

ndash Europe needs to promote science education makescientific knowledge more accessible and promotegender equality in science and innovation

ndash Stakeholders in society should be consulted in theprioritisation of research agendas Research agendasshould reflect the values expectations and concernsof citizens and civil society

ndash Societyrsquos innovation capacity can be improved throughpublic-private cooperation and the involvement ofcitizens and NGOs in the production of knowledge

ndash Tackling big societal challenges demands cooperationbetween science innovation and stakeholders insociety such as the public sector and NGOs

ndash Researchers and entrepreneurs have a responsibility toview their research and innovation in a societal context

Should Responsible

Research and Innovationbe promoted throughtop-down regulation orpeer-to-peer processes


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14



Smart Sustainable andInclusive Research and InnovationScience and innovation are in constant flux New modelsprocesses and experiments are emerging that are alreadyforcing a rethink In pharmaceuticals Peter HoslashngaardAndersen told us about the breakdown of the establishedmodel of innovation as a ldquopipelinerdquo Carolin Kranz told ushow BASF were re-evaluating their responsibilities asa leading nanotechnology innovator The consensus wasthat emerging models of open and inclusive innovationoffered an opportunity to rethink to put responsibility atthe heart of research and development although therewas recognition that it was easier to have the discussion

within a university than at a company

As the European community gears up to launch Horizon2020 in 2013 many people ndash many more than populatedthis conference ndash will take an interest in its approachThe conference was populated by people who haveworked hard to encourage new forms of dialogue aboutscience and innovation The relatively meagre budgetsthat have been allocated to Science and Society workhave paid dividends But there is a growing ambition andexpectation that this now has to move beyond just words

The assumption remains that ethics social responsibilityand public dialogue would act as speed bumps onthe road to progress This conference suggested analternative view that they were a way of opening up newpossibilities for innovation In short if the EU is interestedin growing a ldquoSmart sustainable inclusive economyrdquoit must ask itself what smart sustainable inclusiveresearch and innovation look like

The grand challenge-approach to research and innovationthat is an important foundation for Horizon 2020 bringsnew responsibilities Taking grand challenges seriouslycould mean a radically new approach to funding and

governing research and innovation It will require newforms of dialogue between science and society as wellas between disparate communities of scientists And itwill require extensive technology assessment blendingsocial and technical considerations How radical are wewilling to be

One obvious conclusion from

this conference should be thatscience-in-society activitiesshould be extremely strongin Horizon 2020


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair

JACK STILGOE Senior Research Fellow at Universityof Exeter Business School

Workshop speakers

ŽANETA OZOLINA Professor at Department ofPolitical Science University of Latvia

CAROLIN KRANZ Senior Manager at Communicationsamp Government Relations BASF

Workshop report by Head of Section

Thomas Troslashst Hansen Danish Agency for Science

Technology and Innovation

This workshop opened with presentations fromJack Stilgoe Carolin Kranz and Žaneta Ozolina Stilgoeoutlined an emerging framework for responsible

innovation explaining how discourse had moved frompublic understanding of science through publicengagement then on to upstream engagement Stilgoeoffered a clarification of some of the key concepts usedwithin the topic of the workshop starting out withresponsibility Stilgoe argued in favour of responsibilitybeing defined in terms of care responsivenesscollectiveness and by being forward-looking Thisdefinition stands in opposition to a concept ofresponsibility being based on a retrospective viewof accountability and liability He presented the caseof geoengineering (which is the idea of engineeringthe global climate particularly through reflecting

sunlight)The discussion that followed centred on thecomplexities of geoengineering as a scientific socialethical and democratic issue

Carolin Kranz gave a presentation on BASFrsquos approachto nanotechnology She started out by introducing BASFrsquosnew company strategy ldquoWe create chemistryrdquo In thestrategy the important pillars are innovation andsustainability Nanotechnology is seen as a key enablingtechnology in various products However it is also atechnology that poses various challenges in relation tosafety regulation and public concern At an early stage

of the development of nanotechnology BASF introduceda Code of Conduct for nanotechnology participatedin safety research and engaged in dialogues with stake-

holders DrKranz pointed out that in order to makeinnovation happen there needs to be an adequate andproportionate regulatory framework Furthermoreshe stated that there is no innovation without any riskThe presentation gave rise to a number of commentson how to deal with conflicts of interest when companiessimultaneously are the facilitator of dialogue processesand lobbyists in relation to regulation Moreovercompanies are often empowered by a monopoly ofinformation on the products that should be regulatedThese comments were debated in the light of how toestablish a trustful relation to stakeholders given theseconditions

Žaneta Ozolina started out by stating that there is a needfor new models of science governance This need stemsfrom an increasing complexity due to globalisation andthe ensuing rapid transformations The new modelsshould acknowledge the multiplicity of actors in the fieldof science In the future there will be more participantsin the science domain including statespolicy makersmedia scientists communities international bodiesand the development of new stakeholders She went onto state that the scientific community needs to considerhow it should open itself towards this growing number

of stakeholders She suggested that this could happenthrough a series of interactions between scientists andsociety scientists and scientists and scientists andpoliticians

The subsequent discussion focused on how to handlethe growing frustrations between scientists andpoliticians It was asked whether there is an anti-democracy discourse developing in science communitiesand how this could be opposed

The second part of the workshop began with a discussionof responsibility and governance There was general

support for thinking about responsibility in terms ofcollectiveness and intentionality Some participantssuggested that ethics should be thought contextuallyand should be embedded in institutions codes andpractices In smaller groups participants identified anumber of challenges issues or questions They askedhow emerging technologies appeared to be changingwhat it means to be human They asked how ethicsmight be a part of trends such as do-it-yourself sciencehuman enhancement and intellectual property tanglesThey discussed the limits of cost-benefit analysis andhow human rights can be part of science and innovation

See the suggestions produced by the participants

in this workshop on pages 28-30

SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

PAGE 18




Workshop chair

ARIE RIP Professor at Centre for Studies of ScienceTecnology and Society University of Twente

Workshop speakers

LARS KLUumlVER Director of SecretariatDanish Board of Technology

INEacuteS SAacuteNCHEZ DE MADARIAGA Professor and Headof Unit Women and Science Unit Spanish Ministryof Science and Innovation Cabinet of the Minister


Workshop report by Marthe Nordtug Adviser

Norwegian Ministry of Education amp Research

The workshop explored the potential for opening up

innovation processes The discussions evolved aroundthree overarching aspects the notion of open andinclusive innovation ways of structuring open andinclusive innovation processes and suggestions andinput to how open and inclusive innovation processescan be included in a future Responsible Researchand Innovation RRI framework

As remarked by the chair of the work shop Arie Ripinnovation can both be viewed as a business modelas well as a collective good It is by nature new anduncertain distributed and interactive with inherentmutual dependencies There was consensus on the fact

that innovation cannot be seen in isolation from societyThe eventual success of an innovation depends on itsuptake and diffusion As Lars Kluumlver stated futuremarkets for innovation reflect societal needs It isimportant to not limit the notion of innovation to theproduction and development of commodities as a largeshare of innovation is related to state sectors Asemphasised by Kluumlver when involved in agenda-settingphases and asked about their visions and future needsmost of the public will not respond by identifying specificproducts but rather present views on welfare and ldquothegood liferdquo Experience shows that most citizens are highly

able to in fact articulate their future needs even if theyare not updated on the latest technological developments

Open and inclusive innovation takes into account thenature of innovation by engaging diverse stakeholders

and potential users in several stages of the innovationprocess Inclusive innovation is about broadeninginnovation by including more aspects andor more actorsInclusion provides accountability purpose diversity andrelevance The effects of open and inclusive innovationmay be new business models as presented by PrateekSureka higher acceptance of and trust in new productsand new solutions better and more competitive solutionsand a better public understanding of research andinnovation

The discussions on how to structure open and inclusiveinnovation processes referred to various models and

participatory methods for engaging stakeholdersIncreasing diversity is a particular challenge IneacutesSaacutenches de Madariaga pointed out the striking factthat women are still underrepresented in innovationprocesses in spite of their general overrepresentationat graduate and post-graduate levels Also studies showthat gender aspects are missing in many innovationprocesses and thus innovation results subsequentlytarget male realities

Open innovation begins at the agenda-setting stagesthat is when we start to discuss what we want to innovate

about Open innovation plays out in different phases withdifferent levels (societal level programme level projectlevel or process level) focusses and outcomes

After the presentations the chair asked the workshopparticipants to reflect on whether there is a need fora framework for responsible research and innovationThere was general agreement that some form offramework would certainly contribute to open andinclusive innovation and that such a framework requiresinstitutional and cultural change Some participantsexpressed the view that we should take the opportunityto establish such a framework with a new European

programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020emerging There was also general agreement thatany positive changes to open innovation or responsibleresearch and innovation require a re-visiting of theEuropean Research Area and European institutionsThe discussions also clearly coupled open and inclusiveinnovation with addressing grand challenges It waspointed out that the Innovation Union continues tooperate within present structures but if we wantto create open innovation we have to create newpartnerships that current structures do not allow

See the suggestions produced by the participantsin this workshop on pages 31-33


PAGE 19



WORKSHOP 4Engaging Stakeholders in SettingResearch Agendas and Creating

Visions for European Futures

Workshop chair

ANDY STIRLING Professor at Sussex UniversitySTEPS ndash Social Technological and EnvironmentalPathways to Sustainability

Workshop speakers

KAARE CHRISTENSEN Professor and Directorat the Danish Aging Research CenterUniversity of Southern Denmark

HANS MUumlLLER PEDERSEN Director General at theDanish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation

ROBBERT DROOP Policy CoordinatorDutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

Workshop report by Special Adviser David Budtz Pedersen

Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation

This workshop opened with presentations from AndyStirling Kaare Christensen Hans Muumlller Pedersenand Robbert Droop Stirling described the substantivebenefits of public dialogue in improving decision makingDone well public dialogue opens up and informs politicaldebate about alternatives It points to the many possibleways in which we might proceed and make lock-ins andother forms of closure less likely Dialogue is one ofmany ways (others include collaborative research and

interdisciplinarity) of broadening research agendas andincreasing diversity

Kaare Christensen asked how we can engage stake-holders in the challenges and possibilities of ageingpopulations There has been a vast rise in life-expectancyin almost all European countries This poses newchallenges for research including normative questionsof strategies for living longer and in better healthPriorities in research however are highly sensitiveto the ldquodefinitionrdquo of health and disease Here engagingstakeholders is vital to tackle the key challenges Self-

report (users generating data and reporting them via forinstance smart phones) in new medical treatments anddecisions of health intervention need to engage olderpeople and recognise how ldquoengagementrdquo also changesin different stages of life Christensen made the point

that there needs to be a balance between high technologyand low technology solutions The latter are often moreimportant than science policy discussions would suggest

Hans Muumlller Pedersen presented RESEARCH2020a basis for prioritising strategic research programmesin Denmark with input from key stakeholders such asauthorities universities and business organisationson the basis of several consultations RESEARCH2020is an attempt to establish a reference point for researchpolicy debate in a systematic and transparent fashionThis means that the formulation and design of strategicresearch policies is not solely a matter for politicians and

ministers Hans Muumlller Pedersen argued that stakeholderparticipation can make for better decisions and thatstakeholder involvement in agenda setting should helpenhance knowledge production enhance innovationand improve how science addresses grand challengesParticipatory methods can turn the attention of researchcommunities towards important societal challengesParticipatory priority-setting can take place as a dialogueor multiple stage approach where consultation of thepublic private stakeholders universities and NGOs iscombined with expert-based workshops and scenarios

Robbert Droop described how in European researchand development policy stakeholders are often equated just with industry Public participation was lacking inagenda-setting in the Seventh Framework ProgrammeCompanies must be involved but we can also to a largedegree make use of what is happening in society Leadingcompanies have bright ideas they are creative and policyshould look more closely at them That said you cannotexpect companies to rethink their processes in sucha way that they cease to exist Stakeholders should beinvolved in ldquochain actionrdquo according to Droop Thatmeans that policy makers should be better at creatingpartnerships ndash and hence building more trust ndash between

private companies and between public and privatestakeholders ndash but only where there are options ofmarketability which continues to be the most importantcriterion for entrepreneurs

There was discussion on whether participation couldbe a more general model for future shaping policies forEurope ndash not only in the domain of research policiesBut politicians often seem reluctant to accept alterna-tives Participation also brings questions about trans-parency trust and accountability It was also pointed outthat there is a danger of ldquopseudo-legitimisationrdquo when

using participation methods




PAGE 20



WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship BetweenResearch and Politics

Workshop chair


Workshop speakers

MARK DUBOIS PhD at Innovative FisheriesManagement Aalborg University and GAP2 participant

PIERRE983085BENOIT JOLY Senior Research Fellow at theNational Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) France

Workshop report by Senior Consultant

Line Gry Knudsen DEA

The fifth workshop had presentations by Stina VrangElias Mark Dubois and Pierre-Benoit Joly Stina VrangElias gave her view of how evidence was used ineducation policy She argued that it was rare to find

knowledge properly used in the development of educationsystems Surveys such as the PISA-studies create a lotof debate but politicians still tend to base policies onideological toolboxes and not on scientific evidenceSo we still have many young people leaving elementaryschool without proper reading skills The field of schooldevelopment is based on ldquogut feelingrdquo conventionalwisdom and the beliefs of the politicians Also evidenceof what works or doesnrsquot works is lacking in certainareas On the perennial question of class size forexample we still do not have good evidence of whetherthe number of students is more important than theteacher skills

Mark Dubois presented GAP2 ndash a Europe-wide projectthat brings together fishermen and researchersfrom across the continent to help inform and shapepolicy ndash and described how fishermen often challengeresearchersrsquo knowledge and how they are oftensuspicious of researchers on their boats Fisherymanagement is about human behaviour trying to find

ways to make fishermen fish responsibly Mark Duboisargued that knowledge production works best in partner-ships conducted in practical ways by researchers andfishermen together integrating local knowledge withscientific knowledge This means confronting currentpower relationships sharing responsibility andempowering groups to take part Duboisrsquos presentationprompted much discussion of the dynamics of colla-boration the identification of ldquostakeholdersrdquo contesteddefinitions of sustainability and the appropriate level(European national local etc) for the developmentand application of new models Dubois underlined thatthe development of new models is not about creatingways of regulation but of creating trust throughcollaboration

Pierre-Benoit Joly described common distinctionsbetween facts and values and between knowledgeand power The relationships between knowledge andpolicy making need to be mediated through public debatePoliticians may transgress the borders of scientificknowledge for example in risk management The caseof nuclear waste management provided some importantlessons First the need for open discussion of the waysin which issues are framed Second the question of what

counts as reliable knowledge for legitimate decision Andthird the importance of reversibility as a way to articulatethese concerns Pierre-Benoit Joly argued that scientificexperts have the role of producing reliable knowledgeand exploring socio-technical issues and he concludedthat improving the relationship between knowledgeproduction and policy making is key He was questionedon the arms-length principle in connection withcooperation between politicians and researchers andunderlined that researchers have the role of ldquoframingrdquoissues allowing for better political decisions afterwardsJoly also pointed out that evidence based policy is onlyapplicable in certain areas The following discussioncentred on the limits of a narrow view of ldquoevidence-basedpolicy makingrdquo the multiple roles for scientific expertiseand the various ways in which it can be organised andwhether the relationship between research and politicsshould be based on top-down or bottom-up processes




PAGE 21


httpslidepdfcomreaderfullconference-report-science-in-dialogue 2242PAGE 22



Introduction tothe workshop suggestions

During part 2 of the workshops the participants wereasked to define what they saw as challenges within theworkshop topic based on the previous presentations anddiscussion Each workshop was then split up into smallergroups (5-6 people) and each group was asked to identifydescribe and suggest ways to tackle a particularchallenge

The key conference theme was lsquodialoguersquo and theworkshop sessions aimed to reflect this by being open-ended bottom-up processes Each suggestion was builtup around some pre-defined questions but otherwisefocus was fully on the thoughts and ideas brought to

the table by the participants

As with any summary of intensive wide-ranging dis-cussions there are many gaps to be filled in Never-theless the suggestions may serve two importantpurposes First they should remind attendees of thescope of discussion and suggested future directionsSecond they may inspire other interested parties whowere unable to attend the conference to act or thinkin new ways

Some of the challenges and suggestions described focuson the practice of dialogue Some use lessons from publicdialogue to recommend particular policy actions Otherstake specific emerging issues such as food security orhuman enhancement and describe how they might beapproached in a dialogic way

The workshop discussions were deep and focussed Theyallowed participants to go beyond conventional platitudesthat are familiar from past discussions of science-in-society The recommendations therefore provide a sharpview of issues such as incentives vested interests andpower structures that are often overlooked in more

general arguments for wider dialogue The hope isthat they can stimulate new conversations new policydirections and new research

On the following pages you will find all the suggestionsproduced during the workshop sessions They have beenleft unedited (except for spelling mistakes and the like)and should not be seen as official statements fromthe conference but rather as the fruit of a few hoursrsquodedicated work by the conference participants

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23



At what point in the research process should researchers engagein dialogue with the public Is it possible to do so before researchresults are known Or should scientists involve the public inthe research process

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionThe level of dialogue should depend on the stage of research The public could have influenceon formulating challenges for scientists to address in their research During the researchprocess there is less interest in dialogue with the public but once research results are availablethe public could be involved again to define the fields in which the results could be applied

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe benefits for the scientists would be that their activities would be better known andunderstood by the public This could facilitate funding and create trust Scientists can benefitfrom public involvement as the public can provide valuable information for example in the fieldof medicinediagnosis Advice from the public could be addressed towards other bodies egpolicy makers decision makers and funding agencies This openness can also lead to generatingnew ideas in scientific fields The public benefit is a better understanding of what goes on inscientific research and a feeling of involvement A sense of mutual responsibility and trustbetween the public and researchers could be developed There is also an ethical dimensionin the selection of fields of application

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionScientists research teams and institutions science communicators representatives ofthe public media and social science scholars to analyse the process and evaluate the actionand the context

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented at any time Main obstacles would be time and money also interest fromboth sides the scientists and the public The involvement of all relevant institutions (researchinstitutions labs industry NGOs) is also needed

What are the cost implicationsThe process mainly needs peoples time and effort Additional costs depend on the chosenmethod

How is it possible to make sure that different stakeholders are involved

in the development and implementation of the suggestion and how would

they work togetherStakeholder dialogue should be open The presentation of topics needs to be made moresexy and designed with the target group in mind

WORKSHOP 1

Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics WS1

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24



The public does not necessarily have a technical understandingof science With this in mind how can a meaningful dialogue aboutscience and technology issues be developed

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionAn iterative process must be developed whereby the actors reach an understanding of eachotherrsquos viewpoint A suggested starting point would be to recruit and train intermediates whooccupy the boundary between the actors There is a difference between such intermediates andtraditional science communicators in that the intermediates should not only be able to transfer

knowledge and viewpoints from scientists to the public but also from the public to the scienceand technology community It must be stressed that this is a repeated process and that ittakes time before a mutual understanding is reached

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeFrom the publicrsquos standpoint such a dialogue will clarify why investment in science isimportant as a means to address societal problems For the scientists the dialogue will givethem awareness that their research is a result of societal demands and that they do not live inthe infamous ivory tower Interaction and understanding between actors develop mutual trustThis can be very important in such cases as a pandemic outbreak when scientists need to movequickly and perhaps without consultation The development of such a process would representa paradigm shift Whereas science and society have been two separate entities until now

the implementation of this iterative process will create a situation where dialogue is an integralpart of the scientific method This has an immense amount of added value in that scienceis now embedded into societyrsquos culture

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionEverybody However there must be a political and economic will

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededAn institute must be established to implement the idea and to train the relevant actorsNGOs could perhaps be involved

What are the cost implicationsAs what we are suggesting is quite drastic the costs would be substantial Howeverthe technology and the expertise already exist Perhaps the idea could be tried outas a pilot project and the success otherwise examined



they work togetherAny initiative established in a systematic way should also have an evaluation processAlso official recognition and visibility for the actors involved must be ensured

WORKSHOP 1

Learning from Dialogue Between Science and its Publics

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25



The challenge is to make scientists conscious that science is embeddedin society and that dialogue with the wider public is a prerequisitefor scientific responsibility In fact it is the role of the public to makescientists responsible Scientists have to learn this

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionPromoting participatory mechanisms of all sorts and integrating community-based research intoscientific institutions Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) must become an integral partof the scientific process

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMake the RRI concept a naturalintegral part of the scientific practice and thinking The benefitis more responsible science and less regulation including fewer control mechanisms

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearch institutions individual researchers members of national parliaments governmentsmedia

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededNow and the process can be improved over time

What are the cost implicationsHorizon 2020 should include substantial funding for participatory mechanisms promoting RRI



they work togetherStakeholders must be convinced that there is something in it for all stakeholders

WORKSHOP 1


We talk about bringing thepublic to science but maybewe should change the dis-course to bringing scienceto the public


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26



How can scientists be motivated to engage in dialoguewith the public

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Making scientists aware that there is a genuine interest in their researchndash Identifying real passion (scientistsrsquo understanding of the public)ndash Assessing and rewarding two-way communicationndash Motivation through success

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash Enables two-way communicationndash Benefit to scientists it will be easier to get funding if their research gets attentionndash Benefit to institutions (eg university departments) by achieving higher visibility compared

to other institutions

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionCommunication experts (although there is a risk that they are too focused on one-waycommunication) ndash and scientists naturally

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could start now on a small scale Good examples will benefit further development

What are the cost implicationsIt takes time and time is money Specific costs depend on specific projects implemented



they work togetherScience communication and two-way dialogue must be established as a European value in whichall nations want to partake in their own way Nations can choose to implement two-way dialoguein any way they choose and involve stakeholders who are relevant to their own cultural contexts

This is also dependent on the public level of awareness of science

WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27



How do we become self-reflexive about how emerging technologiesare changing people and relationships at the individual andcollective level (person community institution State global level)

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionReframing individualcollective consciousness ndash through education systems media institutionsand the organisation of ethics committees

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeIncreased self-awareness and better connection between individuals and collectivity would

provide stronger forces against manipulation by new technologies

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionFramework programmes for research educational institutions media Also the specificorganisation of institutions should be considered

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth Some knowledge is available and could be used to re-organise certain systems

What are the cost implicationsIt could start on a small scale as an experiment in several communities (real and virtual)



they work togetherThis is an implicit part of the proposal

WORKSHOP 2

Ethics and Emerging Technologies WS2

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28



How is it possible to develop an innovation process that includesethical andor safety considerations but at the same time leavesroom for innovation

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEmbedding specific ethics questions in commonly applied periodical procedures of assessingthe outcome of the research and development process

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeAvoiding the risk of developing a product that infringes ethical norms and is rejected by society

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResponsibility must be shared between the research and development institution a national-levelscientific authority and civil society all playing specific roles in determining the proper ethicalconduct For private companies the recommendations of the national authority would be optional

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented in the near future since the periodical assessment system is typicallyalready in place

What are the cost implicationsNo extra costs as the procedures already in place could simply be expanded



they work togetherDifferent actors would play different roles in the periodic assessment

WORKSHOP 2

Ethics and Emerging Technologies

These discussions oftencall for responsibility ofthe abstract ldquosciencerdquoas such or of the individualscientist What aboutthe responsibility of theresearch institutions


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29



How do we overcome the problems that feeding the planet withnine billion people pose

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionSuppliers need to be less production fixated and focus more on services and human benefitsThis will reduce the amount of waste produced Supply chains including in particular transportneed to be optimised which requires innovative use of new technologies Options for more

systematic carbon footprint-related prices should be considered These market incentivesshould be combined with ethical awareness-raising

Initiatives to promote research for public benefit are needed ndash this could result in newtechnologies

There is a huge potential for innovative nano-applications that can ensure better use of naturalresources It is also important to note that we have an ethical obligation to consider the broaderimplications of our food choices (ethically can we continue to eat as much meat as we do now)

National capacities in agricultural science and related sectors should be strengthenedespecially in the least developed countries

At the most general level there is a need to move towards a new agricultural model basednot on deficit but on balance

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeEnvironmental sustainability and global justice while maintaining a basically free society

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe UN system businesses governments (through regulation)

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededSome elements could be implemented now some later

What are the cost implicationsShould in principle be largely self-financing



they work togetherA global initiative could be an idea

WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30



How do we release the potential of inclusive and open innovation in thebreakdownoperationalisation of the grand societal challenges therebysecuring the involvement of citizens and business In the attempts tosolve the grand challenges we need to go beyond the research communityand also look at regulatory issues cultural issues and labour

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionEach grand challenge steering committee in Horizon 2020 (or regardless of how it will beorganised) should be obliged to make a broad involvement process for citizens and industrythat gives priorities and suggestions to specific problems and research topics that should

be addressed The steering committee is obliged to give feedback and response on howthe recommendations are met Also for each grand challenge room should be made forexperimentssmall projects especially for SMEs

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe funded research projects will have a larger impact

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Union Member States researchers citizens NGOs industry

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation needed

Now - as soon as the overall structure of Horizon 2020 is known Examples and methods alreadyexist at national level There could be a need to develop methods for the involvement of SMEs

What are the cost implicationsA very small proportion of the overall budget for Horizon 2020 (001 per cent maybe)



they work togetherThis is the challenge but it is doable as the methods are well established

WORKSHOP 3

Inclusive and Open Innovation WS3

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31



Under conditions of uncertainty how can businesses developnew business models that are more open and inclusive whileat the same time protect their assets

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash A differentiated model should be used that recognises that different degrees of openness

in different stages of development are neededndash Articulate clarify and reach formal agreement on legal issues involvedndash Offer incentives for open innovation in a governance frameworkndash Create awareness that co-innovation will lead to shared benefitsndash Break down internal silos that are the results of corporate culture and leadershipndash Limit the use of consultants

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeOrganisations and societies will both benefit It will lead to socially robust and responsibleinnovation increase productivity and reduce uncertainties

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers innovators industry academia and stakeholders in society including the public

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt could be implemented now but the suggestion needs more deliberation

What are the cost implicationsCosts are uncertain due to the large number of variables involved



they work togetherTransparency will go a long way to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders

WORKSHOP 3


How can the businesssector be motivated toparticipate in public debatesand dialogues on scienceand society


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32



How can a structural change of organisations to favour open innovationsthat can help solve societyrsquos grand challenges and take into accountimportant perspectives of gender sustainability etc be promoted

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionOpen innovation platform

ndash The case of innovations that are not financially viable (eg medicine for very small groups)expanded partnerships (eg for philanthropists) that share risks and ownerships couldbe established

ndash Coupling innovation with regulations (eg LED light vs light bulb)ndash Research proposals should explain how and to what extent sex and gender analysis is relevant

to the intended project stimulating exploration across the usual organisational boundariesndash Platform for cooperation across institutions potential role for bringing different actors

together in order to solve very complex problemsndash The EU changing practice to having shared ownership with other funders (including

philanthropists)

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeMaking open innovation collaborative and possible in non-commercial areas and improvingquality while at the same time addressing social challenges Improving applicability by takingfactors such as gender into account

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionMany actors see above

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededBoth In some forms the model possibly already exists The EU and Member States need tochange practices to mainstream

What are the cost implicationsPotentially small compared to research costs - it depends on the level of formality



they work togetherThis should happen in cooperation between the EU and Member States

WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33



How can vested interests be overcome

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Carry out case studies showing that stakeholder involvement can be helpful also

for overcoming vested interestsndash Include variety of stakeholders to ensure against vested interestsndash Include stakeholder involvement in research proposalsndash Make better use of research instruments (eg outreach requirements)ndash Work withsubvert dominant rhetoricsndash Advocate that engagement and diversity can be a catalyst for (responsible) innovation

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter interaction between science and society technology that is developed in a moreresponsible manner

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Commission national research councils university associations networks of ChiefScientific Officers or networks of interfaces between science and society


More case studies need to be done the other actions mean strengthening or expanding existingoptions

What are the cost implicationsNo additional funding for research just different allocation



they work togetherHave conferences with various stakeholders

WORKSHOP 4

Engaging Stakeholders in Setting Research Agendasand Creating Visions for European Futures

WS4

Responsible Research and Innovationis about allocating tasks and rolesrisks should not only be addressed byscientists normative issues not onlyby ethicists and above all innovationnot only by economists otherwise wecan forget about being able to address

the grand challengesComment made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34



How to define which stakeholders and how many to includein engagement processes How to establish open processesthat can still lead to focused decisions

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Think of engagement as a process with different stagesndash Build robust relations with stakeholder groupsndash Pay attention to the framing of the issue but be prepared to focusndash There is a need to be transparent about the process itself so that groups can enter laterndash Accept that some questions are by definition broad (eg ageing)

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeResults will have greater legitimacy and room for acknowledgement of differences

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThose involved in promoting engagement activities

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt is possible to start now in terms of planning new activities

What are the cost implicationsShould be cost neutral ndash or may actually save money over the duration of the project



they work togetherEveryone can learn from everyonersquos experience

WORKSHOP 4


If non-commercial solutionsto grand challenges are tobe facilitated through sharedownership the EU has to beopen towards shared financingof activities for example bygiving room for co-developmentof actions including co-finan-

cing with private foundationsComment made via iPad during the conference

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35



ndash How can appropriate procedures of engagement representing thediversity of cultures (democracy traditions values and disciplines)be identified

ndash How is it possible to balance interest including those poorlyor not organised

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionConsultation procedures and processes at a European level aimed at including also NGOsand other organisations and movements that try to express and advocate the viewpointsof the ldquopoorlyrdquo organised should be implemented

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeTransparency enhancing democratic involvement and public legitimacy in public researchspending in Europe And enhancing the correspondence between the needs and expectationsof stakeholders in a broad sense on the one hand and the defining and prioritisation of futureEuropean programmes for research and innovation on the other

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe European Council of Ministers the European Parliament and the European CommissionAnd Member Statesrsquo authorities as well as research institutions social and cultural movementsand NGOs

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle it could be implemented now if there is a political will to do so If further investigationis needed a small research programme could be established aimed at identifying best practicesand effective methods of engaging different stakeholders and segments of society

What are the cost implicationsConsultation procedures would probably be a bit more complex but they would be more inclusiveBesides that there could be a need for public funding to NGOs and socio-cultural movements



they work togetherIt is not possible to make certain but attempts could be made to establish the best frameworkconditions for those involved

WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36



How can it be ensured that engagement processes are transparent

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionDiscussion procedure should be defined Communication abilities should be developedCheckpoints that are mutually agreed upon should be set up Evaluation criteria shouldbe defined Expert opinions should be heard

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeThe development of legitimacy and trust

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionThe political system and other relevant bodies

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIt can be implemented now Awareness and political commitment are needed

What are the cost implications

Primarily time



they work togetherIncentives are necessary to ensure this

WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37



Dialogue should ensurebetter societal value forscience funding


How can credibility in the relationship between research and politicsbe established

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionTo build credibility the following steps should be takenndash careful management of the issuesndash identifying stakeholdersndash identifying and validating the experts (setting standards)

ndash acknowledging the limits of knowledge and dealing with any lack of knowledgendash handling value conflictsndash building credibility of the institutions by transparency and coherence

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeBetter informed political choices and decisions Connecting the parties involved

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers and the political system

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededIn principle now but it is an ongoing process

What are the cost implicationsTime bureaucracy and institutional boundaries A political will is needed



they work togetherEnsure openness and inclusiveness wherever appropriate to ensure the engagementof all parties

WORKSHOP 5

A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics WS5

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38



The challenge for policy makers is to implement a policy that has long-term goals with no complete assurance of success due to scientificuncertainty The challenge for science is to make the uncertain nature ofscientific knowledge understandable for both the public and politicians

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionCreate dialogue between research and politics

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengeCreating a common language for scientists and policy makers where the different goals and

interests are made explicit For example policy makers may have to satisfy a range of differentstakeholders such as politicians and the public at the same time

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionPolicy makers scientists and the mediating level of an independent facilitator

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation would be possible now

What are the cost implicationsExpenses for independent mediators or consultant agencies



they work togetherAn independent mediator should coordinate the process

WORKSHOP 5

A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics

SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39



The current institutional set-up is not fit to deal with complexitymake decisions under uncertainty and respond to urgent demandsfor knowledgesolutions

Name and description of suggestioncourse of actionndash Develop a culture of honesty and openness about uncertainty (transparency openness

system dynamics risks complexity ldquothere is no simple answerrdquo)ndash Encourage a diversity of perspectives and understandings of a specific problemtopic

as well as a diversity of solutions in different contextsndash Recognise the experimental nature of policies and the importance of reflection adaptive

management (no regret options precautionary principle resilience learning)ndash ldquoTotal immersionrdquo ndash learning about other peoplersquos perspective and context switch jobs

between politicians and researchers making this part of young peoplersquos training

What is the benefit of overcoming the challengendash People will understand that researchers do not have all the answers and get a better

understanding of what is achievable A positive image of uncertainty and opennesswill be created Credibility of science will be improved

ndash Diversity supports creativity and innovationndash Reactive and responsive policies to emerging problems incorporating changendash A better understanding of each other in different communities

Who must be involved in the carrying out of the suggestionResearchers politicians media the education system

Can the suggestion be implemented now or is further investigation neededImplementation is under way but should be speeded up and interlinked

What are the cost implicationsNo answer given



they work togetherVery hard to say ndash it depends on the context

WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by



PREFACEby Morten Oslashstergaard Danish Ministerfor Science Innovation and Higher Education 3

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE 4

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS 6

MESSAGE DELIVERED AT THE CONFERENCEby Maacuteire Geoghegan-Quinn European Commissionerfor Research Innovation and Science 10

CONFERENCE SUMMARYby Jack Stilgoe conference rapporteur 12

SUMMARIES OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 17

WORKSHOP 1Learning from Dialogue Between Scienceand its Publics




WORKSHOP 5A Fruitful Relationship Between Research and Politics

SUGGESTIONS

produced by conference participants 23

Design BGRAPHICPhotos Lars Skaaning and ConsensusOnline

ISBN 978-87-92776-52-5

For further information on the conference report

contact sidfidk

Videos pictures and other conference documentationcan be seen at wwwscienceindialoguedk

CONTENTS
















gramme





PREFACE

PAGE 3



















GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 4




Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2

26

6

53

13

ere o you ve


Other

Private sector


Media

Government

7

4

11

48

3

26







ndash Beyond words

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5




PAGE 6PAGE 6














and Main Challenges













PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by
















gramme





PREFACE

PAGE 3



















GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 4




Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2

26

6

53

13

ere o you ve


Other

Private sector


Media

Government

7

4

11

48

3

26







ndash Beyond words

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5




PAGE 6PAGE 6














and Main Challenges













PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by



















GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 4




Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2

26

6

53

13

ere o you ve


Other

Private sector


Media

Government

7

4

11

48

3

26







ndash Beyond words

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5




PAGE 6PAGE 6














and Main Challenges













PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




Rest of the World

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Eastern Europe

2

26

6

53

13

ere o you ve


Other

Private sector


Media

Government

7

4

11

48

3

26







ndash Beyond words

GENERAL INFORMATION

PAGE 5




PAGE 6PAGE 6














and Main Challenges













PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




PAGE 6PAGE 6














and Main Challenges













PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




PAGE 7PAGE 7







WORKSHOP 1









WORKSHOP 3









PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




PAGE 8PAGE 8









Workshop speakers

























PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by






















PAGE 9














CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 10














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














Thank you


CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 11



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by



Conference Summary
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 12
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by
















CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 13













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













Should Responsible



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 14












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by












CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 15



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by



CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PAGE 16






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by






Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 18




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers





















PAGE 19





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by





Workshop chair


Workshop speakers




















PAGE 20




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by




Workshop chair


Workshop speakers














PAGE 21














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 23












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by












WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 24














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 25












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by












WORKSHOP 1




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 26














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














WORKSHOP 1


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 27













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 28












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by












WORKSHOP 2




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 29

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by

















WORKSHOP 2


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 30














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 31













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













WORKSHOP 3




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 32









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by









philanthropists)








WORKSHOP 3


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 33














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by














WORKSHOP 4


WS4



SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 34












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by












WORKSHOP 4




SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 35













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 36









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by









Primarily time




WORKSHOP 4


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 37















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 38













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by













WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 39


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by


















WORKSHOP 5


SUGGESTIONS

PAGE 40





Supported by





Supported by

Conference Report - Science in Dialogue

Documents

Transcript of Conference Report - Science in Dialogue