Following the opening plenary in which Maria Leptin (EMBO), Wilhelm Krull (VolkswagenStiftung) and Philip Campbell (Nature) set the stage for subsequent debate, delegates split into two groups for parallel sessions exploring the potential for foundations to spearhead socially innovative research and the impact of social media and networks on research and social innovation. A second series of parallel sessions focussed on Open Access and the challenge of quality assurance and public participation in science: new modes of interaction.
On the potential for foundations to spearhead socially innovative research, delegates heard from Karolina Ruta (Adam Mickiewicz University), winner of the Foundation for Polish Science's 2011 Artur Rojszcak Prize, about her work to integrate students with hearing impairments in university life. Anders Hede (TrygFonden) argued that the role of research in progressive social innovation is to facilitate the more systematic elimination of bad ideas while at the same time supporting the implementation of good ideas in a sustainable manner. Describing socially innovative research as a way of doing research differently to bring solutions to societal challenges that are neglected by normal market mechanisms, Joris Vandeputte (TuBercolosis Vaccine Initiative) cited Product Development Partnerships, which bring together multiple, normally competing partners from both the public and private sectors, as an example of such an approach.
On the impact of social media and networks on research and social innovation, Carsten Koenneker (Spektrum der Wissenschaft) put forward the thesis that blogging researchers have a growing impact on the online visibility of their disciplines. Those who can communicate effectively via blogs and other social media thus see their sphere of influence widening. The experience recounted by Andrea Di Stefano (Valori) of the role of Valori, an online magazine specialising in issues of social economy, in leading the campaign to explain the role and potential benefits of a financial transaction tax is just one example of such influence. Meanwhile Ivan Oransky (Reuters Health) made the case for post-publication peer review. Since they co-founded the blog Retraction Watch in August 2010, Oransky and his co-blogger have analysed more than 250 retractions.
On Open Access and the challenge of quality assurance, delegates heard from a publisher, a librarian and a funder: Philip Campbell (Nature), Jan Hagerlid (National Library of Sweden) and Robert Kiley (Wellcome Trust) respectively. Acknowledging a gradual shift towards Open Access publishing, Campbell predicted that the traditional scientific paper will eventually be replaced by the "scientific edifice", an edifice of text, numbers, equations, data, software, metadata, etc. that is readable, searchable and computable by humans and machines alike. Hagerlid spoke of the challenges, and how to overcome them, in managing a transition to an Open Access model that is economically sustainable, efficient for both authors and users and can guarantee long-term access to publications and data. Kiley pointed out that quality assurance is a challenge for all journals, irrespective of their access model. In its favour, Open Access can in fact improve quality by engaging more readers to counter plagiarism and image manipulation.
On the topic of public participation in science: new modes of interaction, Vladimir de Semir (Pompeu Fabra University) called on scientists and science organisations to recognise the importance of framing science-related issues and to pursue a trust and dialogue-based relationship with the public. Juergen Renn (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science) spoke of the move towards integrative humanities and an Epistemic Web that allows for the creation of virtual knowledge spaces that can parallel human knowledge. The virtual version of the 2005 Berlin exhibition "Albert Einstein: Chief Engineer of the Universe", for example, lives on and guarantees the long-term availability of the contents assembled for the exhibition. Highlighting the potential of innovative exhibitions to engage the public in science, Michael John Gorman (Science Gallery) stressed the importance and intrinsic value of spaces that stimulate conversations between scientists and other actors and act as a funnel for ideas.
Delegates then reconvened for the closing plenary on the future of research and social innovation and the role of foundations in shaping this future. In his keynote address, Ortwin Renn (University of Stuttgart) underlined the importance of interdisciplinarity in policymaking and urged foundations to provide a platform that would facilitate exchanges and flows between disciplines, between policymakers and researchers and between the challenges of today and tomorrow. He was then joined by the opening plenary speakers for a roundtable discussion moderated by Oransky. While the general consensus was that the societal challenges that must be tackled in the coming decades can only be addressed by innovative, interdisciplinary solutions, there was much debate as to how to bring this interdisciplinarity about. Should researchers be left to find their own connections or should funders, including foundations, make this a requirement?