RRI

The operations of socially responsible NGOs and scientific entities fall within the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This concept was and is a key feature of the Horizon 2020 programme (EU website, 2022). In the EU’s framework programme for the period 2014-2020, six main aspects of RRI were assumed to be cross-sectional issues. This means that institutions applying for funding in order to carry out research and development work as part of the Horizon 2020 programme refer, in their project applications, to public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance. 

In the Horizon 2020 programme the issue of disseminating the RRI approach in the research and innovation process was considered in particular in competitions announced in the field of Science with and for society (EU website, 2022). It is worth emphasising that some countries (such as agencies funding research in Holland, the United Kingdom, and France), based on the model of the European Commission, have incorporated aspects of RRI into their domestic research competitions. The RRI approach directly connects such issues as: technology assessment, which is primarily concentrated on public perception or the need for a given solution and, to a lesser degree, considers the technical aspects of innovation; as well as corporate social responsibility which assumes that a company at the strategy-building stage voluntarily considers the interests of society and protection of the environment, as well as relations with different interest groups.

The view of European Commission representatives and the research community implementing their own ‘RRI code’, understood as a change in the cultural sphere and not an ISO-style standard, results in better adaptation of the process of research and innovation, as well as its results, to the values, needs and expectations of European society. Above all, RRI is an ‘inclusive approach to research and innovation’ which ‘is aimed at better adaptation of both the process and the results [research and innovation] to the values, needs and expectations of European society.’ It is assumed that the development of scientific activity should go hand-in-hand with scientists’ sense of social responsibility, as well as social awareness. Achieving this state of affairs will be impossible without active collaboration between science and society, without a dialogue in which representatives of both of these spheres are engaged. 

Here one should observe the fact that the term RRI, similar to its predecessors was not thought up by the research community. The concept was rather first initiated by science policy-makers or organs funding research and implemented in a top-down fashion. We may observe a long-term process of change in the priorities of European science policies which currently place more emphasis on the specific characteristics of a described phenomenon. 

When we look more closely at the concept of RRI, we see that although it is complex, this does not mean it is impossible to implement. Its energetic use has become significantly more visible, as pointed out earlier, in countries such as the United Kingdom or the Netherlands than in Eastern Europe. RRI, as a new approach to research and innovation, places great emphasis on the issue of responsibility and points to a large group of interested parties who should indeed share this responsibility. The most frequently quoted definition of RRI, that proposed by René von Schomberg, assumes that ‘Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society). 

Such a view is, unfortunately, neither very clear nor comprehensible in layman’s terms. This is why it is worth referring to another explanation proposed by experienced popularisers of science. Here, the issue is much simpler: as research and innovation have an influence on society, scientists, as particular individuals and a research and innovation community bear social responsibility as an entire system for their activities, and conversely – politicians, industry and citizens may not place the burden of responsibility only on the shoulders of scientists: they must define their aims, aspirations, future and engage themselves in research programs which will lead us there. 

In short, it is important that society participates in the debate on the subject of the direction of science and its influence on shaping the modern world and society, as well as the consequences of the processes of research and innovation previously mentioned, whose beneficiaries or victims will be the next generation. 

As the same time, it is difficult not to notice that: the rapid development of science and technology often arouses controversy. The numerous examples of research which has been questioned or rejected by public opinion have perfectly shown that the fears of society should neither be ignored nor limited to a question of risk. Science does not enjoy a special status in society while citizens are more and more interested in the aims and motives behind conducted research and demand to be included in the decision-making process concerning a subject and the scope of the research being conducted. 

It is from here that increasing social awareness referring to the role of scientific and technological innovations has become crucial, along with the stimulation of interest in the processes of their creation and their consequences. 

Of course, it is easy to point out a range of factors which may negatively affect the readiness of citizens and third sector entities to become involved in research and research and innovation policies. This, including a lack of relevant knowledge and skills, a lack of feeling of the real significance and impact on the research subject, their scenarios and possible effects, a lack of trust and critical views of the environment (the poor image of researchers, academia etc.), a lack of time and funding, as well as a lack of actual legitimacy to participate in the research process. Perhaps the way to treat this reluctance to become involved in collaboration with NGOs may be the popularization of scientific knowledge itself. What is necessary during the process of education is to foster the building of positive approaches, responsible citizens who are creative and innovative, capable of collaboration, completely aware of and familiar with the challenges which society has to confront. We must keep in mind that a two-way flow of knowledge is essential – this helps citizens understand the achievements of scientists, develops their critical thinking facilities while, in exchange, scientists gain a new perspective which up to now they could not have secured through the walls of universities and laboratories. 

In conclusion, the concept of responsible research and innovation places emphasis on the scientific-research and academic communities remembering that they do not operate in a vacuum but in a complex and demanding social, political and economic environment. Consequently, they must keep in mind the expectations of all interested parties who should become partners involved in the entire research process (from conception to results). Undoubtedly, it is crucial that both universities and interested parties, particularly including NGOs, open themselves up to this kind of collaboration and are aware of the mutual expectations, the most important of which is taking responsibility and sharing, understanding and becoming familiar with it. In this aspect, the Polonez Bis program is an example of inter-sectoral cooperation, where non-governmental organizations are involved in order to more fully implement the RRI assumptions. Although this is conducive to the process of learning together, it should, above all, become a bridge between the scientific world and the social world, between understanding and culture, between practitioners and researchers.