Historically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation (R&I) policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time (1). But there... Show moreHistorically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation (R&I) policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time (1). But there is persistent and growing concern about whether and how ethical and societal values are integrated into R&I policies and governance, as we confront public disbelief in science and political suspicion toward evidence-based policy-making (2). Erosion of such a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, automation and robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many policy efforts have emerged in response to such concerns, one prominent example being Europe's Eighth Framework Programme, Horizon 2020 (H2020), whose focus on “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) provides a case study for the translation of such normative perspectives into concrete policy action and implementation. Our analysis of this H2020 RRI approach suggests a lack of consistent integration of elements such as ethics, open access, open innovation, and public engagement. On the basis of our evaluation, we suggest possible pathways for strengthening efforts to deliver R&I policies that deepen mutually beneficial science and society relationships. Show less
Abstract Societal impact of research does not occur primarily as unexpected extraordinary incidents of particularly useful breakthroughs in science. It is more often a result of normal everyday... Show moreAbstract Societal impact of research does not occur primarily as unexpected extraordinary incidents of particularly useful breakthroughs in science. It is more often a result of normal everyday interactions between organizations that need to create, exchange, and make use of new knowledge to further their goals. We use the distinctions between normal and extraordinary societal impact and between organizational- and individual-level activities and responsibilities to discuss how science–society relations can better be understood, evaluated, and improved by focusing on the organizations that typically interact in a specific domain of research. Show less
Hagenaars, N.; Kruif, T. de; Laar, L. van de; Waltman, L.; Meijer, I.; Levi, M.; Gupta, A. 2019
We study regional patterns of scientific knowledge production in Europe using all scientific publications in the period 2000–2014 attributed to 813 scientific subfields. We show that the existing... Show moreWe study regional patterns of scientific knowledge production in Europe using all scientific publications in the period 2000–2014 attributed to 813 scientific subfields. We show that the existing scientific portfolio of regions offers opportunities for related diversification and discourages the creation of knowledge on topics unrelated to the local knowledge base. Many lagging regions show clear growth, but complex knowledge production remains highly concentrated in regions in the North and West of Europe. For lagging regions there are advantages in not specializing too soon and to first diversify before moving into developing more complex knowledge. Show less
This study focuses on working environment and experiences of PhD candidates at a Dutch university. 250 PhD candidates responded to an online questionnaire and twelve of them were also interviewed.... Show moreThis study focuses on working environment and experiences of PhD candidates at a Dutch university. 250 PhD candidates responded to an online questionnaire and twelve of them were also interviewed. The results of the questionnaire reveal that 38% of the PhD candidates surveyed are at risk of serious mental health problems. This applies in particular to young and international PhD candidates. Having an employment contract has no influence on mental well-being. The more integrated within the university structure, especially in the case of young PhD candidates, and therefore also the more dependent on the academic system, the greater the likelihood of mental health problems, particularly if it is not clear what requirements need to be met or if there seems to be little prospect of an academic career. In such situations, PhD candidates can feel incompetent if they are not offered sufficient support and supervision. It is often unclear whether they have achieved the required standard. At the same time, PhD candidates made positive comments in the interviews about the chance to conduct research and the opportunity to complete a PhD; it is generally a carefully-considered choice. This calls on the University as employer, and the supervisors as those directly supervising the process, to ensure that they make sufficient effort and engage in an open dialogue in order to enable PhD trajectories to be successfully completed. No one denies that conducting PhD research is a stressful period. The workload is felt to be considerable, as clearly also emerges in the interviews with PhD candidates. But this kind of pressure is not a significant predictor of mental health problems among PhD candidates. They are fully aware that the amount of work they need to do is considerable and that this will be at the expense of their work-life balance, at least temporarily. Many PhD candidates take very little time off; holidays are short and work often continues into the evenings and weekends. However, when PhD candidates encounter real problems in dealing with the amount and pace of work, mental health problems can arise. The interviews reveal that this may be associated with teaching duties that take up time that is not offset in other ways. Autonomy at work, often seen as a mitigating factor for stress, does not have that effect for PhD candidates. This may be because PhD candidates always consider their PhD trajectory to be a generally autonomous process for which they are themselves responsible. In this study, the same approach was used as the Belgian research institute ECOOM who conducted in 2016 research into the link between the academic working environment and the (mental) well-being of PhD candidates at Flemish universities. The findings in Flanders would suggest a problem of similar magnitude, albeit with different predictive factors than at Leiden University. Show less
We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning... Show moreWe argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens' meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming Horizon Europe framework programme seems counter-productive and poorly timed. Show less
The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and... Show moreThe last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre.The method consisted of a four-step process to reach a societal quality score per department, based on its (research) outreach to relevant societal stakeholders (the general public, healthcare professionals and the private sector). For each of these three types of stakeholders, indicators within four modes of communication were defined (knowledge production, knowledge exchange, knowledge use and earning capacity). These indicators were measured by a bottom-up approach in a qualitative way (i.e. all departments of the LUMC were asked to list all activities they would consider to be of societal relevance), after which they were converted into quantitative scores. These quantitative scores could then be compared to standardised scientific quality scores that are based on scientific publications and citations of peer-reviewed articles.Based on the LUMC pilot study, only a weak correlation was found between societal and scientific quality. This suggests that societal quality needs additional activities to be performed by health research groups and is not simply the consequence of high scientific quality. Therefore we conclude that scientific and societal evaluation should be considered to be synergistic in terms of learning for the future, accountability and advocacy.This quantitative approach to assess societal quality in a quantitative sense is based on indicators that function as proxies for society quality on different levels, based on the communication of researchers with their societal stakeholders (i.e. knowledge production, knowledge exchange and knowledge use). The methodology presented is just a first attempt to compare scientific quality scores (publication and citation scores) with societal quality scores in a quantitative way. This comparison can be used by organisations (e.g. university medical centres) in their planning and control cycle. Show less
