The Societal Readiness Thinking Tool: A Practical Resource for Maturing the Societal Readiness of Research Projects.

In this paper, we introduce the Societal Readiness (SR) Thinking Tool to aid researchers and innovators in developing research projects with greater responsiveness to societal values, needs, and expectations. The need for societally-focused approaches to research and innovation-complementary to Technology Readiness (TR) frameworks-is presented. Insights from responsible research and innovation (RRI) concepts and practice, organized across critical stages of project-life cycles are discussed with reference to the development of the SR Thinking Tool. The tool is designed to complement not only shortfalls in TR approaches, but also improve upon other efforts to integrate RRI, sustainability, and design thinking in research and innovation cycles. Operationalization and early-stage user tests of the Tool are reported, along with discussion of potential future iterations and applications.

Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective.

Across the European research area and beyond, efforts are being mobilized to align research and innovation processes and products with societal values and needs, and to create mechanisms for inclusive priority setting and knowledge production. A central concern is how to foster a culture of "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) among scientists and engineers. This paper focuses on RRI teaching at higher education institutions. On the basis of interviews and reviews of academic and policy documents, it highlights the generic aspects of teaching aimed at invoking a sense of care and societal obligation, and provides a set of exemplary cases of RRI-related teaching. It argues that the Aristotelian concept of phronesis can capture core properties of the objectives of RRI-related teaching activities. Teaching should nurture the students' capacity in terms of practical wisdom, practical ethics, or administrative ability in order to enable them to act virtuously and responsibly in contexts which are often characterized by uncertainty, contention, and controversy.

Changing direction: the struggle of regulating assisted reproductive technology in Austria.

From 1992 until 2015, Austria had a very restrictive Reproductive Medicine Law (FMedG, 1992) that prohibited a number of treatments such as egg donation, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), heterologous sperm donation for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as well as general access to assisted reproductive technology for same-sex couples. As one consequence of this rather prohibitive law, Austrian physicians active in the area of assisted reproductive technology co-operated with, or had daughter institutes in, countries with less restrictive legislation such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which are only a few hours' drive away. For a long time, liberalisation of the Reproductive Medicine Law was blocked by the fierce and seemingly unresolvable struggle between the restrictive conservative party (ÖVP) and the permissive social democrats' party (SPÖ). In 2014 the impasse, which had lasted for decades, was finally resolved in favour of a more liberal Reproductive Medicine Law that permits egg donation, PGD in some cases and heterologous sperm donation for IVF/ICSI and lesbian couples. Assisted reproductive technology treatments for single women and surrogate motherhood remain prohibited. The new Reproductive Medicine Law was heavily opposed by the Catholic Church, by some conservatives and by disability associations. By applying the concept of political culture, this paper explains why a liberalisation of the Reproductive Medicine Law was blocked for decades, and how the sudden policy change came about.

One size fits all? On the institutionalization of participatory technology assessment and its interconnection with national ways of policy-making: the cases of Switzerland and Austria.

Science and technology policy is often confronted with issues that are both complex and controversial and which have to be decided upon in a delicate constellation of policy-makers, experts, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations and the public. One attempt to deal with such a complex problem is via citizen involvement. Participatory technology assessment (pTA) already goes back to several decades, and countries have made various experiences. While in some countries, governments established technology assessment organizations, which also included pTA in their methodological portfolio, others primarily rely on experts to make decisions on science and technology policy. In a third group of countries non-state actors, such as social scientists, experimented with pTA. However, they were often unable to link these experiments to policy-making. This paper deals with the question of why this variation exists and compares the use of pTA in Switzerland and Austria. Despite similarities between the two countries, both had quite different experiences with pTA so far. Whereas several pTAs have been carried out in Switzerland until today, Austrian pTAs have remained infrequent. The aim of this paper is to explain this difference as a result of different ways of policy-making which affect the use and chances of pTA.