Self-Assessment Rathenau Instituut
Reflection on the Functioning of the Rathenau Instituut in the Period Spanning 2006-2011
April 2012
Board of the Rathenau Instituut Drs. S. Dekker (chairman) Prof. dr. E.H.L. Aarts Prof. dr. ir. W.E. Bijker Prof. dr. C.D. Dijkstra Drs. E.J.F.B. van Huis Prof. dr. H.W. Lintsen Prof. dr. H. Maassen van den Brink Prof. mr. J.E.J. Prins Prof. dr. A. Zuurmond Mr. drs. J. Staman (secretary)
Self-Assessment Rathenau Instituut
Rathenau Instituut Anna van Saksenlaan 51 P.O. Box 95366 2509 CJ The Hague The Netherlands Telephone: +31 70 342 15 42 Telefax: +31 70 363 34 88 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.rathenau.nl Publisher: Rathenau Instituut
. Rathenau Instituut 5
Content
Introduction ...... 6 1 Development of the Rathenau Instituut ...... 7 1.1 Introduction ...... 7 1.2 Strategic developments 2006-2011 ...... 11 1.3 Trends and developments ...... 23 1.4 The Rathenau Instituut in the coming five years: ambitions and plans ...... 23 2 Activities and Results ...... 26 2.1 Stimulating public debate ...... 26 2.2 Supporting policy and the formation of political opinion...... 29 2.3 Scientific research in support of the main tasks ...... 32 2.4 Profile and corporate communication ...... 35 Annex 1 Assessment 2006 ...... 37 Annex 2 Governmental Decree ...... 44 Annex 3 Activity programme and projects ...... 51 Activity programmes 2006-2012...... 52 Case 1 Societal Impact of Research ...... 54 Case 2 Bibliometrics and Field Studies ...... 57 Case 3 The Glass Body ...... 58 Case 4 Human Tissue...... 60 Case 5 Nanotechnology ...... 62 Case 6 Databases and the Electronic Health Record ...... 64 Case 7 Knowledge Chamber Human Enhancement ...... 66 Case 8 30 Years of Research Funding ...... 69 Case 9 Management of Research Groups ...... 72 Annex 4 Organization ...... 74 Internal organization ...... 74 Scope ...... 74 Governance ...... 75 Annex 5 Employees ...... 77 Annex 6 Members of the Board ...... 79 Annex 7 Programme Committee ...... 81
6 Self-Assessment
Introduction
This self-assessment was written as a contribution to the assessment of the Rathenau Instituut. In 2012, an external assessment committee will assess the Rathenau Instituut’s effectiveness and efficiency, by order of the Dutch state secretary of Education, Culture and Science.
The self-assessment consists of three parts.
In chapter 1, the strategic developments of the institute are reviewed, from the recommendations of the previous assessment committee, up to and including the new strategy.
Chapter 2 gives an overview of the activities that the Rathenau Instituut undertook in the period spanning 2006-2011 within the framework of its mission, of the procedures that were followed, and of how these activities were valued by the Rathenau Instituut’s target groups. What was the impact of the activities and the products of the Rathenau Instituut? The explanation of these results attunes to the strategic developments in chapter 1.
The report concludes with a series of annexes containing information on the previous evaluation, the Governmental Decree, the organization, the activity programmes in the period spanning 2006- 2011, the employees, the board, and the programme committee. An annex containing an image- study was added separately.
This self-assessment includes a CD with the report of the previous assessment committee, the annual reports and annual financial reports, the publications that the Rathenau Instituut released in the past period, and the scientific publications by employees of the institute.
Rathenau Instituut 7
1 Development of the Rathenau Instituut
1.1 Introduction
Science and technology are important factors for the prosperity and wellbeing of people. We can already no longer conceive of a world without the very recently introduced technologies such as Internet, smartphones and MRI. Breakthroughs in medicine allow for previously untreatable diseases to be cured. New technologies make our cars cleaner and our energy more efficient.
Exactly because science and technology are important driving forces for economic, societal and social progress, it is crucial that policymakers and wielders of confidential information have our knowledge system at their disposal. How does the system develop? How do other countries do it? And what measures can be taken to make the system even stronger?
No less important is involving and keeping citizens informed. Changes happen quickly and sometimes deeply affect our personal lives. Only when people are timely informed and involved can they prepare themselves for and adjust to the changes, and only then can new technologies be soundly embedded.
History In 1986 the then minister of Education and Science, Wim Deetman, founded the Netherlands Organization for Technology Assessment (NOTA). It had been established that decision-making in new science and technology could easily become a matter for experts and insiders only, where technological aspects prevail. Societal deliberations and dilemmas would then only be dealt with at a late stage. NOTA’s goal was to broaden decision-making power surrounding science and technology. By involving citizens and civilian organizations in decision-making and by signalling societal implications at an early stage, science and technology could take part in democratic debate.
On June 2, 1994, NOTA was renamed Rathenau Instituut after Prof. Dr. G.W. Rathenau (1911- 1989), professor of Experimental Physics in Amsterdam, director of the Philips Physics Laboratory in Eindhoven and member of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WWR). Rathenau had been chairman for the Rathenau Committee, established by the government in 1978, that researched the societal consequences of what was then called automation. Would the rise of microelectronics merely lead to higher unemployment in the Netherlands or would it provide new (economic) opportunities? One of the recommendations of the Rathenau Committee was to henceforth systematically study the societal implications of technology.
In 2004 the institute got another task, initiated by the minister of Education, Culture and Science (OCW): Science System Assessment (SciSA). The purpose of Science System Assessment is to research and integrate knowledge on the way that the science system functions, in order to broaden 8 Self-Assessment
science policy. The scope of the activities in this field greatly increases as of 2006, when an assessment underscores the importance of this task for Dutch science policy and for the institute.
In the years that follow 2006, the institute keeps growing. Technology Assessment (TA) and Science System Assessment reinforce one another, communication strategies are accentuated in order for the institute to become more visible in the public domain, the institute spends more time in parliament, and the international collaboration expands. In 2011 a new mission is formulated integrating the two tasks, and emphasis lies on research and debate in science and technology.
Present organization As of March 2012, the Rathenau Instituut counts 55 employees (48.69 FTE) and has a budget of €5.225 million.
The Rathenau Instituut has four departments. The department of Technology Assessment focuses on research and debate on science and new technology. The department of Science System Assessment analyses the dynamics of science and science policy and publishes basic information on the state of the science system. Together with the project staff, the department of Corporate Communications provides the project communication and is responsible for corporate communication. The department of Management and Support attends to the secretariat, financial management, personnel matters, quarters, and the likes.
A director leads the institute. Together with the four heads of department, he forms the Management Team. The director is accountable to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (in Dutch: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen or KNAW) and to the management of the institute. He is qualitate qua secretary in the management.
Every two years the management of the institute decides on a new activity programme. The minister sends this activity programme, including his standpoint, to both chambers of the States- General of the Netherlands.
The Rathenau Instituut is independent. It has an independent board to which members are appointed by the state secretary of Education, Culture and Science. The institute is placed under the management of the KNAW.
More information on the governance can be found in Annex 4.
Mission The Rathenau Instituut stimulates the formation of public and political opinion on science and technology.
To this end the institute researches the organization and development of the science system, publishes on the societal effects of new technologies, and organizes debates about issues and dilemmas in the field of science and technology.
Rathenau Instituut 9
The Rathenau Instituut focuses on the early signalling of developments in the field of science, technology and innovation, and contributes to the formation of public and political opinion on these developments. We make developments and issues in the field of science, technology and innovation visible to the public, politics and policy. We do this so that awareness and public debate may take place. This is needed because developments in science and technology always put existing structures under pressure. Time and deliberation are needed so that society can become familiar with what is coming. For this, the mission of the Rathenau Instituut is to keep making constructive, critical contributions, both to the formation of society’s opinions as well as to the policy processes and the political decision-making to which they are connected.
In the field of science, technology and innovation, we contribute with our research and analyses to the scientific foundations of government policy. The goal is to contribute to a strong Dutch research practice, widely supported by Dutch society as a whole and serviceable to the developments in this society.
The combination of technology assessment and the analysis of the science system puts the Rathenau Instituut in a unique position at the intersection of politics, science and society. The institute is a pioneer in Europe in the field of technology assessment and it is often mentioned as an example in other parts of Europe or in the United States, for example concerning the themes ‘human enhancement’ and ‘synthetic biology’. We believe we owe this reputation to our often very early signalling of trends, the experimental working methods we choose, our extensive international profile in the media, and the substantive quality of our reports which are generally received well abroad, too.
Surroundings The Rathenau Instituut wants to position and present itself as an independent and authoritative knowledge and debate institute for science, technology and innovation. This can only be possible by staying touch with society. Core values such as independence and authority only have meaning when stakeholders acknowledge them.
The institute’s strategy and its mission of uniting science, technology, society and politics make the stakeholder surroundings very heterogeneous. Through analysis we can distinguish between seven stakeholder categories (figure 1.1): Politics Policymakers Science Advisory councils and institutes Civil society The business community Journalism
Each category contains a small group of highly involved people (the inner circle), a larger group of reasonably involved people (the middle circle) and a much larger group of people not directly involved (the outer circle). Collaboration usually takes place with people from the inner circle. The challenge is to reach other actors through them, as well. 10 Self-Assessment
Each activity on the Rathenau Instituut’s programme focuses on different groups. Therefore it is almost impossible to make a complete stakeholder analysis. The project descriptions in Annex 3 shows that in general, projects involve stakeholders from multiple stakeholder categories. One particular project on the management of research groups focuses entirely on academic actors. In another project, on human tissue, all actors from stakeholder categories were reached. Of the 78 stakeholders that are mentioned in the project descriptions in total, 49 can be characterized as a target group of a project, 23 collaborated with the project, six were initiators of an activity that the institute carried out, and one was service provider.
Our own impression is that the relationships with science and advisory councils and institutes are good, as was already indicated by the previous assessment committee, that the relationships with politics, policymakers and journalism have improved, and that those with civil society organizations and the business community can be improved.
Figure 1.1 Seven stakeholder groups surrounding the Rathenau Instituut (figure: Berenschot)
Rathenau Instituut 11
In the period from September 2011 to January 2012, agency Berenschot was commissioned by the Rathenau Instituut to research the image that stakeholders have of the institute. The report is not included in this self-assessment; however, it can be found on the included CD.
Berenschot concludes that the institute does well in the eyes of stakeholders. The Rathenau Instituut has a clear ‘licence to operate’. Stakeholders from the inner ring of the stakeholder diagram who were interviewed in focus groups, as well as stakeholders who were approached with a survey, typify the Rathenau Instituut with these profile characteristics: ‘relevant questions and approaches’, ‘intellectual, scientific and balanced judgement’, ‘independent, stubborn and critical’.
The institute does not score as high on the characteristics of ‘well-known’ and ‘impact’, and what strikes us here is that stakeholders from the inner circle are more critical than those from the middle and outer circles. The image of the institute is consistent across the various stakeholder categories.
According to stakeholders, the three most important target groups that the Rathenau Instituut should focus on in future are: the House of Representatives (in Dutch: Tweede Kamer), the ministries, and the Senate (in Dutch: Eerste Kamer) of the Netherlands.
According to stakeholders, human enhancement and privacy most typify the institute. Next, they say, come the Dutch science system, robotics and the emerging market for human tissue. The five issues that score high on what they believe the institute should focus on in future are: medical technology, trust in science, digital society, innovation and valorisation (i.e. the societal value of science). Innovation here is a new issue.
The stakeholder surroundings of the Rathenau Instituut are inevitably very heterogeneous. The Rathenau Instituut has a clear ‘licence to operate’, where the institute’s independence and authority are acknowledged. Stakeholders see politics and policymakers as the most important target groups of the institute. Stakeholders mention innovation as a new issue for the institute. Relationships with civil society organizations and the business community can be strengthened.
1.2 Strategic developments 2006-2011
Over the past five years, the Rathenau Instituut’s strategy was improved to better anticipate changes in the institute’s surroundings. Moreover, we included the results of the 2006 assessment, and in particular the standpoints that the then minister of Education, Culture and Science conveyed in her letter to the House of Representatives (see Annex 1). Three important aspects were mentioned in this letter. First, she pointed out the necessity that the institute would gain greater visibility and create a distinct profile. She also emphasized the importance of the advancement of the department of Science System Assessment and the independence of the institute, particularly concerning the institute’s position within the KNAW.
12 Self-Assessment
In the following sections, we discuss which strategy changes were made and which changes are still in the pipeline. The classifications that we made ensue from the recommendations of the assessment committee from 2006: Support of politics and policy Stimulation of public debate Advancement of the function of Science System Assessment Strategic collaboration Independent position Visibility and profile
To conclude this chapter, we will take a look at the coming period. Which points can still be improved and what are our plans and ambitions for the coming years?
Support of politics and policy The Rathenau Instituut stimulates the formation of political opinion on science and technology. For this, among other things the institute must maintain good relationships with parliament as well as the departments and other managerial bodies. The relationship with the Dutch parliament takes shape through the organization of expert meetings, through contributions during round table conferences, in standing chamber committees for Education, Culture and Science, and through researchers on secondment to the Bureau for Research and Public Expenditure (BOR). Together with European colleague institutes, the Rathenau Instituut does Technology Assessment projects for the European Parliament. The institute contributes to the development of knowledge for the departments through so-called ‘Knowledge Chambers’ (in Dutch: kenniskamers) and workshops. The actors in the science and knowledge policy are backed by independent and reliable information, such as the TOF-numbers (TOF: Total Research Funding): the yearly overview of government investments in research.
Parliament The assessment committee (2006) judged that for the added value that the Rathenau Instituut aims for as a partner, supporter and handbook in the formation of political opinion, it is important to create a firmer relationship between the institute and the House of Representatives. The sector- based organization of the House of Representatives was seen as a complication for the Rathenau Instituut. Moreover, the assessment committee had noticed that members of the Senate also wanted to be supplied with the Rathenau Instituut’s information and critical reports.
The assessment committee suggested that in the interaction between the cabinet and the House of Representatives, a given time limit would be established for the cabinet to formulate a standpoint on the Rathenau Instituut’s publications. Based on this, discussion would take place in the House of Representatives. Moreover, the Rathenau Instituut and the House of Representatives should better gear their activity programmes to each other.
In its reaction to the recommendations of the assessment committee the cabinet indicated that they would consider the Rathenau Instituut’s work and judge, from case to case, whether a cabinet standpoint is desirable. The minister pointed out that the House of Representatives (or the Senate) could decide on a standpoint themselves based on the work of the Rathenau Instituut, without the Rathenau Instituut 13
cabinet interfering first. After all, the work of the institute is also focused on supporting parliament in the formation its opinions and decisions. The minister also noted that the Rathenau Instituut ought to get a stronger profile in the direction of parliament and it should have a good knowledge base to fill the role of expert with authority. Information parliament had to take place using condensed letters.
Over the past five years, the Rathenau Instituut has put a lot of energy into building a relationship with parliament. A starting point has always been that the institute does not work for specific political parties or individual members of parliament, but rather for the whole of parliament or for a specific committee. The relationship with the House of Representatives requires constant investments because members of parliament have very busy schedules and few of them actually keep their posts for long periods of time.
In chapter 2 we show which activities were undertaken for which of the two chambers of parliament over the past five years. The Rathenau Instituut participated in round table conferences in the House of Representatives on issues it has expertise of or may gain expertise of in a short period of time. Reports were specifically brought to the attention of members of parliament. Members of parliament are explicitly asked to attend presentations and reports are presented in the House of Representatives. Examples of themes are: privacy, ethical issues such as dilemmas concerning the use of embryos, valorisation, and scenarios for agriculture and GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
In order to structurally strengthen the relationship with the House of Representatives, researchers are on secondment to the Bureau for Research and Public Expenditure (BOR), so a strong connection may grow between the Rathenau Instituut research and the House of Representatives. A secondment helps to involve employees of the Rathenau Instituut with parliament.
Electronic Health Record
In 2009, commissioned by the Senate, the Rathenau Instituut wrote a memorandum on the opinions of various involved organizations and persons on the Electronic Health Record. Moreover, the Rathenau Instituut presented the results of a public survey to the members of parliament. This first expert meeting on 9 December 2009 was followed by a second meeting on the same issue on 22 March 2010.
A good relationship has also been established with the Senate. Various expert meetings were already organized with this ‘Chambre de Réflection’, among other things about the Electronic Health Record.
In collaboration with European sister institutions the Rathenau Instituut has organized various workshops and expert meetings for the Technology Assessment Group (STOA) of the European Parliament (among other things on the themes Making Perfect Life and Human Enhancement). The monopoly that the consortium has on the European Parliament is not sustainable. This calls for a new European strategy.
14 Self-Assessment
In the past years, the Rathenau Instituut has greatly invested in its relationship with the Dutch and European Parliaments. The institute has become more visible to both institutions. Tension is caused by the wish of members of parliament to be individually informed, as well as by the institute’s task of operating in a politically neutral way. The huge dynamics of the political playground make it essential to continually invest in the relationship with parliament. A new strategy is needed for the relationship with the European Parliament.
Policy The Rathenau Instituut actively maintains connections with the ministries and with a wider policy area. Our activities in this field fit a growing need for strengthening the relations between science and policy in an intensive knowledge society.1 A broadening ‘beyond’ the departments is important, here, because policy – especially science and knowledge policy – does not only take place in The Hague. The development and implementation of policy spreads across a broad range of actors in the Netherlands and at the same time shifts to international actors such as the European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). If the institute wishes to remain independent and have impact, support for the policy will have to increase.
By request of various ministries, the institute has now held meetings on the implications of new technology. In part this takes place in the shape of so-called ‘Knowledge Chambers’, which were introduced a few years ago to promote the interaction between the heads of departments and the experts of knowledge institutes. A knowledge chamber was organized for the departmental top of the Ministry of Security and Justice and the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, on the possibilities of human enhancement technologies in the fields of justice and security. Together with their Directorate of Strategy and the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), a knowledge chamber was organized for the former ministry on artificial intelligence.
Furthermore, we see that policy advisers at ministries often solicit advice from the institute on science policy and on policies surrounding new technology. The various parties in the Dutch science system as well as the state secretary of Education, Culture and Science increasingly appeal for facts and figures from the institute. In taking on and expanding this information function, the institute’s significance and visibility increase.
Ministries increasingly make use of the expertise of the Rathenau Instituut. The Rathenau Instituut’s facts and figures increasingly play a part in the political and governmental field of influence. It is essential to strengthen the information and advisory function towards policymakers in the field of science, technology and innovation. The information and advisory function should not be limited to the government.
1 This was, among other things, established by the AWT (Adviesraad voor Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid) advice Knowledge for Policy – Policy for Knowledge (2005) and in the Contourschets van een functionele en instrumentele intermediaire structuur voor Kennis, Beleid en Innovatie (2005) of the Rabbinghe committee. Rathenau Instituut 15
Stimulation of public debate The Rathenau Instituut stimulates the formation of public opinion on science and technology. Technological and scientific developments call for societal reflection. With this we strive to bring out the perspectives and beliefs of as many different parties involved. The Rathenau Instituut employs an active media strategy, because in a modern media society, public debate mostly takes place in public media and because media also play a very important role in initiating debate within social groups and the business community.
The previous assessment committee did not give any specific recommendations for improvements concerning this task. It was ascertained that the institute is innovative in its approach and knows how to involve new groups of the public in the debate. It was also ascertained that profile and publicity were still insufficient. Later we will pursue the latter point in greater depth. This section is on the strategy for stimulating public debate.
If you wish to stimulate public debate it will not suffice to publish thorough – and often bulky – reports. Neither does organizing participatory processes with citizens guarantee a contribution to public and political debate. When participatory methods are used, the assumption is often correct that more authority will be attributed to the results of a careful process of deliberation, but in practice this promise is only rarely fulfilled. The societal and political meaning of the results of participatory methods is often limited, thanks to issues on representativeness, framing and the extent to which the participants were informed. In the past, citizen participation often ended up as citizen frustration.
The Rathenau Instituut stimulates public debate by contributing information that may raise objections. We try to continue making contributions to a debate on specific relevant themes over a longer period. This creates a public discussion, and the challenge for the Rathenau Instituut is to play the devil’s advocate on the one hand, and to continue being trustworthy and neutral on the other. As becomes clear from figure 1.2, this strategy has led to more visibility in the media and thereby to more visibility and a profile at parliament and the departments.
CLOSER
In 2011, Rathenau celebrated its 25-year anniversary. In our jubilee year, under the motto ‘Closer’ (in Dutch: Dichterbij), we drew attention to the fact that society, science and technology, politics, and policy are all getting closer to each other. Dividing lines are fading and borders are sometimes crossed. Through interactive public activities we drew attention to technology, which is closing in on us, and even crawls under our skins. We organized a design contest in collaboration with the daily newspaper NRCnext, where people were invited to invent a technology that comes (too) close to us. At a ‘Valorisation Parade’ for science we stimulated a discussion on the blending of science and society. Academics are increasingly required to give account of what they do and explain the societal value of their activities. How are academics supposed to deal with this? At the diner conference ‘Knowledge is Power’ (in Dutch: Kennis is Macht) in the Ridderzaal (the main building in Dutch parliament), we invited guests from science, policy, politics, the business community and social organizations to think and debate about evidence-based policy, the phenomenon of 16 Self-Assessment
policymakers who seek scientific research on which they can base their policy decisions. We stated the Rathenau Instituut’s ideas and recommendations on this theme in a well-received study.
A part of the debate strategy of the past period included the incidental organization of technology festivals. In 2006, the institute organized Brain Spotting and in 2008, together with the newspaper NRC Handelsblad, Het Glazen Lichaam. By uniting various issues under a central theme, the Rathenau Instituut had a considerable impact in the media. In 2011, through the overarching anniversary theme ‘Closer’, we bundled various issues and drew attention to them.
Through a strong focus on (serious) media as the locus of public debate, two aspects received less attention. The institute fails to sufficiently reach youths and target audiences that mostly use media for entertainment. As participation methods slip into the background, too little has been invested in building direct relationships with citizens and involving citizens in our work.
In our strategy for the coming years, Rathenau Instituut wants to strengthen attention for difficult-to- reach target groups. Moreover, the institute will research if new, digital participation methods (democracy 2.0) can create new connections between citizens, politics, and science and technology. In order to do this well, the institute will have to remain well embedded in the world of Science and Technology Studies.
In stimulating public debate, the institute no longer concentrates on participation methods, but rather focuses on an active media strategy. The institute is mostly visible in the high-end press. Public groups with little direct interest in science and technology and/or politics are not yet reached sufficiently. Public participation in democratic decision-making has to be revised, and most probably calls for a renewal of existing working methods.
Advancement of the function of Science System Assessment In 2004, Science System Assessment was added to the Rathenau Instituut’s tasks. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science realized that an independent authority was needed that can supply basic data on science and technology in the Netherlands, and offer insights into the workings of the science system. In 2006, the assessment committee confirmed that the Science System Assessment task was urgent and that only an authoritative body would be able to fulfil this task effectively. The committee urged that the new task should be explicitly included in the Rathenau Instituut’s Governmental Decree. The development of Science System Assessment within the Rathenau Instituut must go faster and the budget for this activity of the institute must be adjusted accordingly. The committee requested that the government must have an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch science system at its disposal, in the short term.
Rathenau Instituut 17
Report: 30 Years of Research Funding 1975-2005 Contrary to popular belief, basic funding for research did not decrease.
The addition of Science System Assessment was an important strategic task in the past period. The number of employees of the Rathenau Instituut that keeps itself busy with Science System Assessment increased from four employees at the beginning of 2006 to eighteen by the end of 2011. In 2009, the task was included in the new Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut. Through collaborations, the appointment of part-time professors, and participation in international networks, the Rathenau Instituut made a name in the field of science policy studies. Collaboration on the project level with academic organizations (universities, university medical centres, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), KNAW, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU)) has strengthened the institute’s embedment in the science system. Publications were made in policy support and politics on the development of research funding, on focus and mass in the science system, and on facts and figures on knowledge institutes.
Four lines can be found in the portfolio of the Science System Assessment task in which the department was successful. The first line concerns the research in the field of funding and the organization of research, which has led to insights into the scope and development of various forms of funding and to debate on the complexity of the science system. This last issue was elaborated on in the publication on focus and mass and the current activities surrounding the coordination of research and the dynamics of climate research programmes.
The second line concerns the studies on the management of research groups. The studies in this field received many positive reactions within the university medical centres, where a number of conclusions on the best management practices of research groups were integrated. The studies
18 Self-Assessment
gained international recognition, because research on research groups is still relatively new. The line has grown with activities in the field of career and talent selection.
The third line concerns the societal contribution of scientific research. Thanks to the ERiC (Evaluating of Research in Context) project with KNAW, NWO, VSNU and the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (HBO-raad), studies into the societal impact of research programmes, the dynamic of knowledge co-creation and activities in the field of valorisation, the Rathenau Instituut has achieved recognition as centre of expertise on this subject.
Finally, the fourth line concerns analyses of the dynamics of science fields. The Rathenau Instituut has developed its own line by deploying scientometrics for field studies (for example, coastal research, transdisciplinary education research, water system research), and for the analysis of the flow of knowledge between science and industry. The software package SAINT (Science Assessment Integrated Network Toolkit) is an open-source package that makes the methods accessible to third parties.
The informative function of the institute has grown stronger in the field of Science System Assessment. The institute is now responsible for the publication of the yearly overview of the government’s estimated research expenditures. These so-called TOF-numbers have great political relevance. Together with the KNAW, the website www.nederlandsewetenschap.nl was launched, where basic information on the science system can be found.
The combination of Technology Assessment and Science System Assessment offers chances for strengthening science and technology, considering the interrelatedness of both functions. In the past period, this was realized in a few projects. Over the course of time, the activity programmes were integrated, and for the coming period collaboration will be extended to themes such as NBIC (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences), innovation and Europe.
In the SWOT analysis of 2011 it became apparent that it is important that in the coming period more attention is given to the rise of the European Research Area and its effect on the Dutch science system, and that focus on the academic science system is extended to the innovation system.
The Science System Assessment task has significantly increased in the past period and been embedded in the institute. The activities in the field of Science System Assessment become more visible in public debate and in the formation of political decisions. The activity portfolio has a strong focus on the Dutch academic science system. The combination of Technology Assessment and Science System Assessment can be exploited more efficiently. In order for the portfolio to remain relevant, it must be broadened.
Strategic collaboration Collaboration is essential for the Rathenau Instituut, as shown by the stakeholder analysis above. The previous assessment committee was positive about the national and international embedment Rathenau Instituut 19
of the Rathenau Instituut and would like to see this strengthened further. The assessment committee recommended that the Rathenau Instituut starts a network of organizations that bring technology assessment in practice in the fields of genomics, nanotechnology, and medical technology. The committee had the following results in mind: rapport, contribution of the Rathenau Instituut’s debate expertise, and co-funding of the Technology Assessment activities of the institute.
The cabinet approved of this suggestion by the assessment committee. A network of organizations concerned with the societal effects of genomics, nanotechnologies and medical technology could lead to more efficiency of the public means invested. The minister of Education, Culture and Science considered the collaboration important for the visibility and profile of the institute, too, because the relation between science and society became increasingly institutionalized in research connections such as CSG, Nanoned and COGEM.
The Rathenau Instituut has not followed the recommendation to form a formal network of various organizations. The reason for this was that a few organizations were to be discontinued, which made collaborations inopportune, and that the compelling character of such collaboration would not lead to a better spread and exploitation of the typical expertise of the institute at all, according to the Rathenau Instituut. This spread and exploitation took place in concrete collaborative projects and in meetings where experiences were shared and help was offered. Above, in the analysis of the surroundings, it was established that the institute works together with organizations from a wide range of stakeholder categories.
There are and have been various collaborative projects between the Rathenau Instituut and foreign research facilities in the Framework Programme Research of the EU. The subjects researched lie in the fields of both technology assessment as well as science system assessment. In these collaborative projects, the Rathenau Instituut’s knowledge is being disseminated (for example the guide on assessment of social impact of research) and use is made of the specific expertise of other European and non-European research institute.
Over the past years, the Rathenau Instituut has explicitly focused on scientific and technological developments in Asia. Through close collaboration with Officers for Science and Technology in Japan, China and South Korea and based on the work of trainees, the institute organized workshops and meetings on science, technology and innovation policy in Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing and Seoul. This has led to the development of strategic collaborations in Asia.
In the past period, the Rathenau Instituut has made an effort to establish new national collaborations and create a distinct profile, also internationally. Collaborations with civil society organizations and the business community must be strengthened on a national level. The institute wishes to create a stronger international profile for itself in Europe and strengthen relationships with Asian countries.
Independent position Independence is an important condition for the Rathenau Instituut’s functioning. At stake is the credibility of an institute that can speak with authority on the science system and on technological 20 Self-Assessment
developments. The appearance of partiality affects the authority of the institute. Experience shows that the reports of the Rathenau Instituut are seldom greeted by unanimous agreement and that the organized interest groups in these reports often find reason to take a public stance on this.
In 2006, the assessment committee recommended that for the independence and the stature of the Rathenau Instituut, the best construction is for the institute to fall under the KNAW. However, the independence must be better safeguarded in the Governmental Decree. The committee signalled a possible conflict of interest between the Rathenau Instituut’s Science System Assessment function and the interests of researchers who work within the framework of the KWAW.
The assessment committee recommended that a written regulation is made where the special position of the Rathenau Instituut as a KNAW institute is adequately drawn up and where the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science supervises that agreements are complied with.
The minister considered the assessment committee’s suggestion useful that the Rathenau Instituut’s own, independent position with regard to the KNAW is safeguarded by clear, written agreements and that the minister of Education, Culture and Science must supervise the compliance to these agreements. The minister promised to confer with the KNAW on making these agreements.
In 2009, the Rathenau Instituut’s managerial relation with the KNAW was explicated in the institute’s Governmental Decree, in order to guarantee the institute’s independence. It is important that the decree states that the KNAW guarantees that the institute can function independently with regard to content and that government contribution is at the institute’s immediate disposal. A more detailed account of the authorizations and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the KNAW, the board and the director can be found in the Governmental Decree in Annex 2. (In Dutch only)
As the Rathenau Instituut also inspects the functioning of the KNAW and the government in its reports, in particular in the field of Science System Assessment, the quality of the managerial relationships is of utmost importance for the independence.
The independence of the institute was added into the Governmental Decree upon its alteration. Independence is one of the institute’s core values and therefore continuously calls for attention in managerial and other stakeholder relationships.
Visibility and profile In our modern mediacracy, visibility and profile are essential for an institute that wants to have impact on public debate and the formation of political opinions. Moreover, it is highly important for an institute that is financed with public means to be transparent and to disseminate its research findings as widely as possible. The assessment committee suggested that effort should made for the Rathenau Instituut and its activities to become more well-known. While preserving the characteristics of reliability, respectability and objectivity, new methods must be found that make the institute stand out more and attain a more distinct profile.
Rathenau Instituut 21
Over the past years the Rathenau Instituut has invested in strengthening communication with target groups and stakeholders. The department of Communication has received a boost and been professionalized. In order to strengthen the image of the Rathenau Instituut among stakeholders, corporate communication has been intensified. For example, in 2007, a new, contemporary house style was introduced that contributes to the recognisability of our statements. Since 2008 the Rathenau Instituut biannually publishes in-house magazine Flux, with editions of 2,000 copies that are spread among relations, stakeholders and those interested. A reader’s survey held in 2011 shows that the magazine is much appreciated by readers for its accessibility, choice of subjects and depth. In 2010 the institute’s renewed website was launched. The number of visitors to the website has since steadily increased and by 2011 there was an average of almost 10,000 visitors per month. A digital newsletter has been sent to over 1200 subscribers since the beginning of 2011.
Apart from the input in corporate communication, leading a proactive press policy is the most important strategy with which the Rathenau Instituut works on greater visibility and a sharper profile. Investments are made into the media network and the institute actively approaches journalists and editors with research conclusions and findings. Staff receives media training. Opinions are frequently offered to newspapers. From 2006 onwards, the number of mentions and media sightings (published, online, and radio or television) has soared (see figure 1.2). In 2011 there were 190 mentions in published media, 180 in online media and 39 in radio or television appearances. The same year, seven opinion columns by researchers of the Rathenau Instituut were published in national newspapers.
The results from the image research show that the institute’s image among stakeholders corresponds to the independent and authoritative position that the institute wants to have, and it is seen as relevant.
Figure 1.2 Visibility Rathenau Instituut 2005-2011
The advance of social media (such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook) is a rather recent phenomenon. Meanwhile, these media took a prominent place in the various communication methods that the Rathenau Instituut employs. After Google, most of our website’s visitors come in via Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. 22 Self-Assessment
Social media – especially Twitter – are becoming increasingly important to the Rathenau Instituut. These media are interactive in essence, which seamlessly matches the core task of the institute. By now, the corporate account @RathenauNL has 1046 followers. Fourteen employees have a Twitter account and they actively ‘tweet’ about their work. In the coming years, social media and applications (apps) for smartphones and tablet computers will gain a prominent place in our communication approach.
In the coming years, the most important challenge to the Rathenau Instituut will be to broaden its reach to its target groups. Through serious media, the institute succeeds at reaching professional target groups and older (45+), highly educated newspaper readers. But the developments in science, technology and innovation are important to everyone. This is why, in the coming years, we want to develop public campaigns surrounding important themes in the field of science, technology and innovation, with activities that focus on specific, other target groups, for example youths, students or lesser-educated people.
Over the past years, the Rathenau Instituut has invested considerably in visibility and profile in serious media. This has, in virtually every way, led to more visibility. The image of the institute fits its own positioning well. The institute’s visibility to broader target audiences is still slight, and can be improved through targeted investments. Programme committee In order to increase the visibility and profile of the institute, the assessment committee suggested that the institute’s board should include influential people from business, public administration and science, who have experience in the field of science system assessment and/or technology assessment, or those who have good political antennae. Or the institute should found a programme committee. The cabinet thought that the Rathenau Instituut should decide for itself on these suggestions.
In 2010 a programme committee was installed with influential people from business, public administration and science. The idea is that the programme committee considers the developments of society that are important to the activity programme and that it supports the board and the management content-wise by signalling trends and scheduling topics. The composition of the programme committee can be found in Annex 4.
By asking critical questions, members of the programme committee made an important contribution to developing strategy in 2011. The role and the position of the programme committee is still under development. It may be a good idea to expand the composition of the programme committee with more members from stakeholder categories and public groups.
Rathenau Instituut 23
1.3 Trends and developments
Science and technology are in the spotlight, both in policy and politics as well as in the media and for the public. This gives rise to a striking contradiction. Where society’s expectations are exceptionally hopeful with regard to the contribution of science and technology to prosperity and wellbeing, at the same time we see how faith in authorities and institutes is subject to erosion – a development that affects science, too.
Other striking developments are: Concern for the future of our welfare state. There is a growing realization that the Netherlands will spend a long time going through innumerable, radical reforms, which is related to the worry that the Netherlands has less and less influence and control over external circumstances. There is constant criticism for large (sociotechnological) practices such as health care, agriculture and education, which fail to overcome persistent problems. Flaming distrust for specific government measures that are based on science and technology and affect citizens directly. Think of vaccination issues, the underground storage of CO2, the fight against Q fever and the prediction and tackling of the financial crisis. Social media magnify criticism and debate. Large social changes due to the rise of key technologies such as nanotechnology, IT, biotechnology and neurosciences. The international trend to make claims to science visible, concrete and accountable, where it concerns scientific contribution to the tackling of large, social problems, the knowledge society and innovation. The top sector policy in the Netherlands illustrates this well. Large shifts in the international competitive relationships that directly affect science, technology and innovation policy and make it essential for putting (social) scientific research into action, more so than in the past. An increase in European coordination and institutionalization in the field of science and technology. Dutch arrangements are being reformed, also where it concerns top sector policy. There is an increase in European research funds where there is a decrease in Dutch national research funds. Pressure for children (and their parents) to obtain a good position in the knowledge society. Views on education and on learning on the work floor are changing. There is an increasing need for evidence-based policy because many reforms did not achieve their desired effects. Interesting and promising arrangements between science, technology and business in the field of sustainable development, where new relationships are established with social organizations and technology is made fit for society in an early stage (the design stage).
1.4 The Rathenau Instituut in the coming five years: ambitions and plans
The Rathenau Instituut constantly adjust its strategy and working methods to developments in society and to its direct surroundings. As the Rathenau Instituut is not the only actor in the 24 Self-Assessment
science/policy/society interface, we continually seek out strategic collaborations with other parties.
In 2011 the Rathenau Instituut did a SWOT analysis on behalf of a reassessment of its course and strategy. This gave rise to the following development lines, which are partially a continuation or intensification of previously started actions, and partially a new element in the course and strategy of the institute. All these lines received extra means.
A starting point is that the Rathenau Instituut functions and is recognized as an independent and authoritative knowledge and debate institute in the Netherlands for science, technology, innovation and society.
(1) Information function The Rathenau Instituut is developing into the most important authoritative source of objective information on the Dutch science system and on scientific and technological developments with a large societal impact. In the projects, attention is given to, among other things, the collection and presentation of the underlying basis of facts. Subjects for which ‘facts and figures’ are being collected and presented are expanded, such as academic careers, innovation policy and NBIC. The reach of the website is being enlarged.
(2) Debate function Next to our audience of the more highly educated who are interested in science, technology and politics, we also want to reach new target audiences, such as youths and lesser-educated people. These groups, too, are impacted by science and technology and experience its effects on their lives and on society as a whole. The media strategy continues. Public participation gets new attention, also with a view on the rise of social media. Here, too, national borders are crossed which can be seen in public debate.
(3) Position in innovation and industrial R&D. The Rathenau Instituut works on attaining a recognizable, own position and role in the field of innovation and the innovation schedule. New projects in the field of the technological relationship between universities and industry, non-academic institutes and NBIC will contribute to this. From existing projects, the institute makes connections with, for example, the top sector policy. Services in this field are being expanded, as are stakeholder relations with industry.
(4) Services to parliament and the departments The Rathenau Instituut’s efforts can grow to include independently and reliably serving the departments and other institutions (comparable to planning offices) in the field of science, technology and innovation policy.
This is possible, among other things, thanks to the drafting of a research plan for the science, technology and innovation policy which is being executed together with partners, on behalf of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. This is the background against which to regard the Rathenau Instituut’s initiative to set up a biennial agenda for risk and incident policy for the departments. Rathenau Instituut 25
The Rathenau Instituut also wishes to contribute to the introduction and perfection of the so-called evidence-based policy strategies for the departments and parliament.
In conclusion, the Rathenau Instituut wants to offer its experience and expertise on mediation in concrete conflict situations in the field of government actions, technology and society to interested parties, on a more systematic basis.
(5) European and international position Decision-making on science and technology is taking on increasingly European and international dimensions. The development of European research and innovation space, and the international discussions on, for example, biosecurity, privacy legislation and geoengineering are familiar examples. This development has direct consequences for the opportunities of national policy in the field of science and technology. This means that these European and international dimensions must take on a stronger character in the projects and that the institute’s visibility must be increased in international networks and discussions. Internationally seen, the collaborations with Asian organizations in the field of science and technology policy are strengthened.
(6) Proactive attitude The Rathenau Instituut is working on the development of a more proactive attitude and the formulation of a revenue model that is focused on increased income and less dependency on institutional funding by Education, Culture and Science. We are thinking of a ratio of 75 per cent institutional funding and 25 per cent contract funding. This will be combined with a marketing and branding strategy. The goal of this is not only to discover if a better connection can be made to large subsidizers such as NWO, the European Commission and the European Parliament, but also if the institute can offer services to businesses or organizations. An important point to consider when drawing up this strategic line is the tension that external funding may cause considering the neutrality and independence of the institute.
26 Self-Assessment
2 Activities and Results
The Rathenau Instituut’s mission to stimulate the formation of public and political opinion on science and technology can be translated into two core tasks. Namely, organizing and stimulating public debate on science and technology, and supporting the formation of political opinion. In this chapter we will give insight into the extent to which the tasks have been fulfilled.
Next to this, two supportive tasks will be analysed, namely the doing of (scientific) research in the field of the science system and the effects of new technology, and the development and effects of a corporate communication strategy. The institute sees these two tasks expressly as supportive tasks that must be at the service of the core tasks. We do not strive to be seen as an academic institution with research as our primary task, or as an institution for public information in the field of science and technology.
IN this chapter we follow a method developed in the ERiC project that the Rathenau Instituut did in collaboration with NWO, KNAW, VSNU and HBO-raad. This project developed a method to make the societal contribution of research groups assessable.
The basic thought behind the method is that, where it concerns the mission of a group or institute, indicators are developed on the relationship with the surroundings, activities, relevant output and, if possible, impact. Societal impact of activities is often dependent on processes outside the sphere of influence of a research group, or in this case the Rathenau Instituut. However, the chance for societal impact can be increased through productive interactions with stakeholders.
In section 2.1 we apply the above approach for the task of stimulating public debate, where we look at the interactions with stakeholders, the activities and output directed at a wide audience, and the appreciation in public media. In section 2.2 we look at the interactions with political stakeholders, the activities, and political effects. Section 2.3 and 2.4 give a view on the scientific embedding of the institute and on the results of the corporate strategy, respectively.
In Annex 3 nine projects will be discussed in greater detail, to complement the overview in this chapter.
2.1 Stimulating public debate
Using sharp words, the Rathenau Instituut tries to put political questions on science, technology and society on the table and improve public debate by separating facts from fiction, technological promises from science fiction, and policy effects from policy ideologies. In order to increase the effect of public debate, in 2006 it was chosen to seek much more contact with key actors in public debate and to link project activities to decision-making paths.
Rathenau Instituut 27
In this section we present a number of core ideas on the relationships with stakeholders and the role of the institute in public debate.
Collaboration with stakeholders In chapter 1 we distinguished between seven stakeholder categories. In Annex 3, nine projects from the activity programmes from 2006 to 2011 are discussed. It becomes clear from the description that in most projects, stakeholders from various categories are involved. Exceptions are the project on human tissue, where stakeholders from all categories were involved, and the project on the societal impact of research, in which twenty stakeholders from six categories were involved.
Table 2.1 The number of stakeholders per case and stakeholder category
Policymakers Policymakers
councils andcouncils
Civil society society Civil
community community Journalism
Business Business
institutes
Advisory Advisory
Science Science
Stakeholder Politics category Case
Societal impact of research 1 2 10 1 4 2
Bibliometrics and field studies 1 1
The Glass Body 1 1 1 1
Human tissue 4 1 1 1 1 2 5
Nanotechnology 2 6 1 1
Databases and the EHR 5 1 2
Knowledge chamber Human Enhancement 1 2 1 1 1
30 years of research funding 1 1 3 3 1
Management of research groups 4
It is remarkable that in almost all project descriptions, stakeholders from science are present. It should be mentioned that with Science System Assessment activities, the category ‘science’ contains both target group actors – for whom the project is being done – as well as (colleague) scientists who offer their expertise. Actors from the stakeholder category ‘politics’ also seem to be well represented in the projects.
Support committees Projects increasingly have support committees that safeguard the quality of the work and make sure that the project fits the social dynamics. In the period spanning 2006 to 2011, seventeen support committees were involved in the work of the Rathenau Instituut. The idea is that both experts as well as stakeholders take part in these committees. In practice, however, usually people are invited who have relevant expertise on the subject. The representation of stakeholders in the committees is limited.
28 Self-Assessment
Table 2.2 Overview of project support committees 2006-2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Ambient Intelligence and Migration Technology Human Enhancement Coordination in Dutch Health Science
The Integral Energy Debate Dilemmas surrounding the use of Biobased Economy embryos
European Citizens’ Deliberation on ‘De Spelregels van de Harde, Emerging markets for human Brain and Society Meeting of Virtuele Werkelijkheid’ tissue Minds
Screening Society Energy 2030
Board advice committee ‘Beleving van Reliable science Science System Technologie en Assessment Wetenschap’ Digitalization of Voorgeprogrammeerd Public Space
Activities, publications and presentations Table 2.3 gives an overview of meetings, publications directed at a wide audience, and public appearances of the Rathenau Instituut’s employees. The table shows that the Rathenau Instituut became more active here in the past period.
The number of meetings has grown. It is important here that a significant portion of these meetings is organized in collaboration with debate centres and media. ‘The Glass Body’ (In Dutch: ‘Het Glazen Lichaam’; 2008), which is discussed in Annex 3, is a good example of this. Comparable to this is the ‘Great Robot Show’ (in Dutch: ‘Grote Robot Show’; 2009), which was in collaboration with Science Centre NEMO. Other examples are the Spinoza debates, which were organized with NRC Handelsblad, NWO and Teleac since 2008 on various themes and with assistance from Spinoza laureates. These debates take place six to eight times a year at music stage ‘Paard van Troje’ in The Hague. Furthermore, the Rathenau Instituut has frequently organized meetings on issues that are on the activity programme, together with debate centres such as ‘De Rode Hoed’ and ‘De Balie’ in Amsterdam, ‘Tumult’ in Utrecht and with open lectures at universities.
It is striking that the number of publications by staff for a wide audience has remained stable since 2007. What the figures do not show is that a number of publications were highly successful in reaching their audiences. More than in the past, publications lead to reactions in the press, invitations to presentations, and follow-up activities. Good examples are the publications from spring 2011 on human tissue, Nier te koop, baarmoeder te huur, and the one on Priorities in Dutch science: ‘Focus en massa in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek’. Both publications led to much debate in the media and to invitations for presentations by many different stakeholders.
The rise in the number of presentations at external meetings is significant: in six years the number has almost quadrupled. This is probably due to a combination of effects: An increased search for debate compared to the past. An increase in the attributed expertise in the project subjects. Rathenau Instituut 29
A growth in the number of employees. The extended duration of projects after publications were successful.
Table 2.3 Activities within the framework of public debate 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Debate meetings 43 28 27 27 68 46
Publications focused on a wide 31 65 62 80 62 72 audience
Of which published externally 3 23 24 49 21 46 Presentations as speaker at 19 29 52 113 180 133 external meeting Other appearances at external 2 5 15 9 15 33 meetings (panel member, moderator, and so on) Press releases 13 12 14
In the media: published and online 288 187 293 305 506
Appearance on radio/TV 20 24 34 27 39
Source: annual reports 2006-2010, METIS 2011
Impact It is difficult to measure the impact of public debate. The impact is greatly dependent on the stakeholders and the dynamics of the follow-up debate. The cases in Annex 3 give an impression of the variety of impact. Almost all projects and themes discussed give examples of how the activities led to public debate. Moreover, the descriptions of projects such as Human Tissue, Societal Impact of Science and the Electronic Health Record indicate that a further shift in impact is taking place. The debate also translates into a call for decision-making at various organizations and the Rathenau Instituut becomes closely involved in this.
In general, with its public activities the institute reaches an audience of more highly educated people who are interested in science, technology and politics. In 2011, as the result of a SWOT analysis the Rathenau Instituut concluded that it also wishes to focus on target audiences that have an interest in the issues on the institute’s activity programme, but that have so far been reached only limitedly, such as youths and lesser-educated people.
2.2 Supporting policy and the formation of political opinion
In the Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut, the description of the Technology Assessment task puts emphasis on the formation of political opinion. This has translated into activities for the House of Representatives, the Senate and the European Parliament, also in the past years. The Science System Assessment task is primarily focused on policy support, where the direct stakeholders are mostly policymakers, ministries and research institutes.
30 Self-Assessment
Through policy support and support in the formation of political opinion, the Technology Assessment task and the Science System Assessment task draw closer together. As TA has been less focused on public participation in the classic sense, and more focused on seeking interaction with key actors in the field, it has also drawn closer to policy actors. Where it concerns SciSA, we see that ‘science’ has developed a stronger political profile and there is an increased interest in science policy in parliament.
Relationship with parliament In the past period, the institute’s project activities and results were made relevant to parliament in various ways. The first way is through organizing meetings for the Senate and the House of Representatives. Meetings have been organized with multiple themes. Through preliminary talks with experts and the writing of memorandums and reports, discussion on science and technology has been intensified and focused on the core issues. A number of times an employee of the Rathenau Instituut was invited to be expert at a hearing. Table 2.4 gives an overview of the meetings that were organized for the Dutch and European parliaments in the period spanning 2006-2011. The second way is through inviting members of parliament to participate in project activities. In a single case, members of parliament took part in a support committee. In 2011, the relationship with the standing Chamber Committee on Education, Culture and Science improved through talks with the committee members responsible for science policy and through presenting the report Focus en Massa. Lastly, there is contact with parliament’s Bureau for Research and Public Expenditure (BOR). In 2011, this led to a Rathenau employee’s secondment within the framework of the House of Representatives’ ‘Toekomst- en Onderzoeksagenda’ (research agenda). Over the coming period we will search for opportunities to strengthen this collaboration.
Through the STOA, the TA department of the European Parliament, the Rathenau Instituut has contributed to expert meetings and debates for the European Parliament.
Table 2.4 Meetings with Dutch and European Parliament Year Issue for 2006 RFID & Identity Management European Parliament Converging technologies European Parliament Opportunities and drawbacks of RFID House of Representatives Energy for the Future House of Representatives Biotechnology and Genomics House of Representatives 2007 New Life in the Biodebate House of Representatives RFID seminar European Parliament Eureka-reading on synthetic biology House of Representatives Meeting standing Chamber Committee LNV/VROM House of Representatives STOA workshop Human Health European Parliament 2008 Expert meeting Biotechnology in Agriculture Senate Expert meeting Digital Security Senate Rathenau Instituut 31
Year Issue for ‘Doden van eendagshaantjes, kan dat niet anders?’ House of Representatives (public opinion on the killing of day old chicks in poultry farming) 2009 Workshop Human Enhancement European Parliament Workshop Assessing Animal Welfare European Parliament Netherlands Nano-land round table meeting House of Representatives Expert meeting Electronic Health Record Senate Expert meeting on nature conservation Senate
Round table meeting on the storage of CO2 and on House of Representatives energy 2010 Round table meeting on Electronic Health Record Senate Working visit of EK and TK members to Campus House of Representatives and TUe Nanomedicine the Senate Expert meeting and conference Making Perfect Life European Parliament Debate Risk Governance of Manufactured European Parliament Nanoparticles 2011 Expert meeting on nature conservation Senate Presentation of report ‘Focus en Massa’ House of Representatives Round table biometric database House of Representatives Round table ICT for government House of Representatives Talk about Nier te koop, baarmoeder te huur House of Representatives (Kidney for Sale, Womb for Rent)
Publications for policy and politics During the evaluation period the Rathenau Instituut made a number of publications that were specifically focused on supporting policy and the formation of political opinion. Until 2008, a number of times a Message to Parliament was published, in which the results of projects were summed up. Because of the emphasis on public debate, this series of publications faded into the background. In 2011, this series was picked up again and given the new title ‘Bericht’ (Message), because members of parliament and other actors are in need of brief summaries of project results. Furthermore, publications for parliament appeared at the above meetings.
In addition, in the field of Science System Assessment a series ‘Feiten en Cijfers’ (Facts and Figures) was started, in which basic information on a number of fields in the Dutch science system is presented. Returning issues in this series are government funding of research (TOF-numbers) and important facts on the scope and achievements of research institutes. The facts from this series are also available through the site www.denederlandsewetenschap.nl, which was set up together with KNAW and is now managed by the Rathenau Instituut. On the short term the institute will launch the English version of this website.
Furthermore, advisory reports were written over the past years for the benefit of government policy, advisory bodies and social organizations. These publications are always public, but not directly focused on parliamentary decision-making. Examples of these are an analysis of the relation between brain and cognition research and education research; ‘Een strategische agenda voor 32 Self-Assessment
ethiekbeleid’ (a strategic agenda for ethical policy; 2009) for NWO and the former Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality; a memorandum on ‘organization and funding of medical research’ (2010) for the National Health Council; and impact studies (2011) for he BSIK/FES research programmes ‘Klimaat voor Ruimte / Kennis voor Klimaat’ (Climate for Space / Knowledge for Climate) and ‘Next Generation Infrastructures’ (table 2.5).
Table 2.5 Number of advisory reports over the period spanning 2006-2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 National 1 8 1 26 11 29 International 13 9 5 Source: METIS
Effect Through the website ikregeer.nl and through the European Parliament register of documents, we searched the number of mentions of the Rathenau Instituut over the period spanning 2006-2011 (table 2.5). In this period the House of Representatives asked a total of thirteen parliamentary questions as a result of or with reference to work by the Rathenau Instituut. The total number of mentions in the European Parliament documents is at the most 62 per year.
Table 2.6 Rathenau Instituut visibility in parliament documents 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Parliamentary questions and 4 1 3 4 1 answers1 Mentions Rathenau Instituut in 16 34 20 34 31 62 parliament documents1 Mentions Rathenau Instituut in 5 3 - 4 - 2 European Parliament 1 Source: Ikregeer.nl 2 Source: European Parliament register of documents
2.3 Scientific research in support of the main tasks
Doing research is a core activity needed to guarantee the quality of the two main tasks. In this section we will especially look at the embedment of research in the scientific peer community, both in terms of collaborations as well as in terms of publications.
In the past period, the Rathenau Instituut has made a conscious choice to do more research itself and thereby strengthen the expertise and authority of the institute in the field of Technology Assessment. With the development of Science System Assessment, the research activities were strengthened even more. However, the scope of this research is difficult to measure. While employees at the departments of TA and SciSA hold research positions that are classified under the university positions used by KNAW, their tasks are different than those of university researchers. Their research is interwoven with other activities focused on the two main tasks, and time spent on research is not registered differently.
Rathenau Instituut 33
Embedding in the research community In order to safeguard the research and its results, it is highly important that the research is embedded in relevant research communities and that scientific meetings are organized. This embedding is increasingly taking shape and will be strengthened over the coming years.
In the past period, the Rathenau Instituut has strived to strengthen its relationships with universities on a national level. At this moment, the Rathenau Instituut has appointed three professors: - Prof. Dr. Peter van den Besselaar, professor of ‘Organization Sciences, in particular the organization and dynamics of the science system’ at VU University, Amsterdam. - Prof. Dr. Frans Brom, professor of ‘Ethics of Technology Assessment’ at the University of Utrecht. - Prof. Dr. Wim van Vierssen, professor of ‘Science System Assessment of water-related research’ at Delft University of Technology.
Furthermore, the Rathenau Instituut is a member of Netherlands School for Research in Practical Philosophy, and since 2011 also of the Netherlands Graduate Research School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture. In 2011 an initiative was taken to, in the field of Science System Assessment, strengthen the collaboration with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at the University of Leiden.
On an international level, in order to work on its Science System Assessment task, the Rathenau Instituut was a member of the European Network of Excellence PRIME, which was focused on studies for research and innovation policy. In this network the institute collaborated in studies in the field of research funding and the development of indicators, and debates on how to understand and research the development of the European Research Area. This network ceased to exist. A part of the activities continues within the European Network of Indicator Designers (ENID); a network in which the Rathenau Instituut is also active, as shown by various presentations at the network’s conferences. Another part of the activities continues in the European Forum for Studies and Policies for Research and Innovation (EU-SPRI). This is a network that consists of the larger European research groups in this field. In 2011, both departments of the Rathenau Instituut were accepted as members of this network.
34 Self-Assessment
Table 2.7 EU projects in which Rathenau Instituut participated 2006-2011 Period Acronym Name 2004-2009 PRIME-NoE Network of Excellence: Policies for Research and Innovation in the Move to ERA. 2006-2007 INES Institutionalisation of Ethics in Science Policy 2006-2007 CIPAST CIPAST Citizen Participation in Science and Technology. 2009-2010 EURECIA Understanding and Assessing the Impact and Outcomes of ERC funding 2009-2011 SIAMPI Societal impact Assessment Methods through studying Productive Interactions 2009-2012 SYBHEL Synthetic Biology for Human Health: Ethics and Law 2011-2012 JOREP Joint and Open Research Programmes in the European Research Area 2011-2014 GEST Global Ethics in Science and Technology 2011-2015 PACITA Parliaments and civil society in Technology Assessment: Broadening the knowledge base in policy making
In the field of Technology Assessment activities, intensive international collaboration took place with sister-institutes in Europe. These organized themselves into the EPTA network – the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. In part this happened within the framework of STOA projects for the European Parliament, and in part through projects funded by the European Framework Programme. Table 2.7 gives and overview of projects funded by the EU in which the Rathenau Instituut participated during the assessment period.
Scientific publications An important part of the research results makes its way to publications in the framework of the debate, policy and politics. Furthermore, through congress lectures and publications, the Rathenau Instituut takes part in scientific debate. The primary reason for this is to test research methods and results within its own scientific community, before public and political debate is sought out.
Table 2.8 gives an overview of the number of scientific publications in the past period. It is interesting to see that after a rise in 2006 to 2007, the number of publications remains stable. The number of lectures does increase, but in 2010 it drops again.
Rathenau Instituut 35
Table 2.8 Scientific publications and presentations 2006-2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Scientific articles, reviewed 8 6 14 18 6 8 Scientific articles, not reviewed 1 7 1 1 1
Scientific books, monographs 1 1 2 3 Chapters in scientific books 1 9 6 23 11 26 Dissertations .. 4 1 - - - Scientific congress contributions .. - - - 1 2 Scientific lectures by invitation 2 13 15 1 11 28 Other scientific lectures 4 23 53 57 19 44 (Co-)organized scientific meetings and 19 20 17 18 11 13 workshops Source: METIS
If we look at reviewed scientific publications that appeared in journals that are part of the Scientific Citation Index, we see that the department of SciSA publishes in the field of ‘science policy studies’ with emphasis on research assessment and the field of scientometrics. Furthermore, there is a set of 22 scientific publications from the department of TA, which were published in journals in the field of, for example, health care, ethics, ICT, and so on.
2.4 Profile and corporate communication
In the past period, the Rathenau Instituut has invested in strengthening communication. An important part of this effort is visible in the stimulation of public debate and the support of policy and politics. Furthermore, investments were made in corporate communication to strengthen the image that stakeholders have of the Rathenau Instituut. In previous years it turned out that many connections only knew the institute through the specific project or theme in which they were interested and did not have a complete picture of the institute as a whole.
In 2007, in order to strengthen the corporate image a new, modern house style was introduced that contributes to the recognisability of the institute’s statements.
Since 2008, the Rathenau Instituut biannually publishes in-house magazine Flux, which is spread among relations, stakeholders and those interested. It offers backgrounds and debate on themes on the intersection of science, technology and society. Flux appears in editions of 2000 copies and numbers 1670 subscribers. In 2011, a reader’s survey was held, which shows that readers appreciate the magazine. On average, Flux gets rated 7.9/10. Sixty per cent of the respondents rates the magazine with 8/10, 24.3 per cent rates it with 7/10. Readers especially value the articles’ depth in combination with their accessibility. 22 per cent of respondents work in science, 29 per cent is retired, 15 per cent work in policy and another 15 per cent in business. The majority of respondents are male, and the average age is 57 years old.
36 Self-Assessment
Meanwhile the continued development of Flux is being worked on. Attention goes out especially to broadening the reach and strengthening the formula with a more cross-medial approach.
In 2010 the institute’s renewed website was launched. The number of visitors to the website has since steadily increased and by 2011 there was an average of almost 10,000 visitors per month, with an average of 3.23 page views per visit. At this moment the website contains 379 publications by the Rathenau Instituut (table 2.9). Twitter and Facebook are responsible for an increasing portion of the website’s traffic. After Google, most of our website’s visitors come in via Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn (table 2.10).
Table 2.9 Visits to www.rathenau.nl 2010 2011 Visitors 102.185 115.966 Page views 344.094 374.644 Downloads 1954 3380 Visitors Rathenau weblog 3338 7002
Until January 2011, the Rathenau Instituut sent out a digital newsletter on nanotechnology. This newsletter had 450 subscribers and it has meanwhile been merged with the corporate newsletter. Since January 2011 this digital newsletter is being sent to over 1200 subscribers. The relations of the Rathenau Instituut are the newsletter’s target group.
The corporate weblog: http://rathenaunl.wordpress.com/ was launched in January 2010 and it was visited 3338 times in 2010 and 7002 times in 2011. In 2011, sixteen contributions were published. A number of these contributions were republished on the weblog sargasso.nl.
Next to the corporate strategy, social media are being employed within projects to stimulate debate and spread results. Good examples of this are the combined electronic newsletter and website on nanotechnology (http://www.rathenau.nl/web-specials/nanodialoog/home.html), and the weblog ‘Intieme technologie’ (intimate technology; http://intiemetechnologie.wordpress.com/) which has existed since 2011.
Meanwhile, fourteen employees have a Twitter account. They actively ‘tweet’ about their work. The account @RathenauNL has over a thousand followers (on 31 December, 2011).
Table 2.10 Number of contacts through social media Account contacts Twitter @RathenauNL 1046 followers Facebook www.facebook.com/pages/Rathenau- 74 fans Instituut/141853865847586 LinkedIN http://www.linkedin.com/company/229796 179 relations Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/RathenauInstituut 11.000 views
Rathenau Instituut 37
Annex 1 Assessment 2006
The assessment committee’s report, led by Mr C.G.A. Cornielje, is titled ‘Naar een hogere versnelling’ (To a Higher Gear) and was presented in 2006 to the minister of Education, Culture and Science, Ms M.J.A. van der Hoeven.
Below is a list of the assessment committee’s conclusions and recommendations, both with regard to Technology Assessment, Science System Assessment, and some more general conclusions and recommendations.
Conclusions and recommendations with regard to Technology Assessment:
1. For the added value that the Rathenau Instituut strives for in the formation process of political decisions as a partner, supporter and handbook, it is necessary to strengthen the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Rathenau Instituut; 2. There is a clear match between the Rathenau Instituut, members of the House of Representatives and thematic committees of the House of Representatives that focus on broad, long-term issues in the field of science and technology; 3. The sector-divided organization of the House of Representatives is a complication for the Rathenau Instituut; 4. The assessment committee noticed that members of the Senate, too, wish to be nourished by the Rathenau Instituut’s informative, critical reports; 5. The many debates that are organized by the Rathenau Instituut are well visited. New ways of working, such as through citizens’ panels, are appreciated. Events that were organized by organizations such as NEMO are mostly well visited, but they are sometimes still somewhat experimental. All this implies that, compared to the previous assessment period, the Rathenau Instituut succeeded in involving more citizens with social issues that must be decided on democratically; 6. Considering the importance of pluriformity, it is good that there are multiple organizations that bring Technology Assessment into practice, but it is not clear how these activities compare to those of the Rathenau Instituut; 7. There is an informal chairmen’s meeting on long-term issues between advisory bodies such as WRR, AWT, SCP and institutions such as KNAW and NWO. The Rathenau does not take part in these; 8. The Rathenau Instituut’s Technology Assessment task – receiving constant attention – is embedded reasonably well, internationally.
Recommendations for Technology Assessment:
1. The assessment committee suggests that concerning the traffic between the Cabinet and the House of Representatives, it is established that the Cabinet forms a standpoint on the Rathenau Instituut’s publications within a given term. Based on this, a consideration takes place in the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the assessment committee suggests that the 38 Self-Assessment
House of Representatives updates the Rathenau Instituut which actions were undertaken as a result of the institute’s publications. The House of Representatives’ standing committee on Education, Culture and Science could safeguard the procedures. The Rathenau Instituut and the House of Representatives should also ensure that their activity programmes are more attuned to one another; 2. Since the House of Representatives sets its own working methods, these suggestions will have to be drawn up between the Cabinet and the House of Representatives on the one side, and on the other between the House of Representatives and the Rathenau Instituut; 3. The assessment committee recommends that approaching individual members of the House of Representatives happens in a more personally tailored manner; 4. The assessment committee recommends that an effort be made to improve the general publicity of the Rathenau Instituut and its activities. The committee recommends that while retaining the characteristics of reliability, respectability and objectivity, the institute searches for methods that are more conspicuous and present the institute better than the current methods do; 5. The assessment committee suggests that the Rathenau Instituut takes the lead in founding a new network of organizations that bring Technology Assessment into practice in the fields of genomics, nanotechnology and medical technology. Here, the committee has the following results in mind: rapport, the Rathenau Instituut’s contribution of its expertise in debate, and the co-funding of the institute’s Technology Assessment activities; 6. The assessment committee recommends that the Rathenau Instituut take part in the informal chairmen’s meeting on the long-term subjects of advisory bodies such as WRR, AWT, SCP and institutions such as KNAW and NWO.
Conclusions and recommendations with regard to Science System Assessment
1. With a view on the societal and economic urgency of Science System Assessment, the assessment committee is of the opinion that the advancement of the Rathenau Instituut’s expertise takes place too slowly, based on current means; 2. Only an authoritative institution will be able to execute Science System Assessment well. This authority will also have a positive effect on the building of networks and the linking of (inter)national top scientists to the institute.
Recommendations for Science System Assessment
1. The assessment committee recommends that on the short term, in the coming cabinet term, the government will have an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch science system at its disposal. This means that the developments of Science System Assessment within the Rathenau Instituut must take place in a higher gear. It is of utmost importance that the first analyses become available on the short term. The assessment committee recommends that the budget for this activity of the Rathenau Instituut will be significantly adapted to suit the activity’s urgency, and advocates a budget increase; 2. The committee recommends that the new Science System Assessment task is included in the Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut.
Rathenau Instituut 39
General conclusions and recommendations
Some conclusions from the assessment of 1999 are still applicable, according to the assessment committee:
1. The institute strives to take an independent position, and at the same time, to gain the attention of parliament and policymakers; 2. There is no binding mutual commitment between the House of Representatives and the Rathenau Instituut, and their lists of subjects frequently diverge; 3. The institute is still not very visible to large parts of parliament; 4. The national importance of knowledge makes communication on science and technology into an important societal and political subject. It is therefore utterly important that attention is given, on a high-quality level, to scientific and technological developments and their effects on society. The Rathenau Instituut can make an significant contribution to exactly this; 5. Minister Hermans’ summarizing conclusion in response to the assessment of 1999 is still applicable: The quality of the work is good, but the institute is still insufficiently well-known; 6. The following conclusion, too, is still applicable: Upholding the placement within KNAW is the best construction for the institute’s independence and stature; 7. The assessment committee is of the opinion that the Rathenau Instituut has undertaken adequate action after the recommendations of the previous assessment from 1999, which were taken up by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; 8. It is of utmost importance that the Rathenau Instituut gains an increasing amount of authority. This authority depends on the institute’s scientific reputation, on the one hand, and on the other it depends on its projects and the practical use of its recommendations.
General recommendations
1. The assessment committee recommends that regulations be drawn up in which the Rathenau Instituut’s special position as KNAW institute is adequately described. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science must supervise that agreements are complied with; 2. The assessment committee recommends that an assessment of the scientific quality of the Rathenau Instituut’s work take place, prior to the five-yearly assessment of the Rathenau Instituut. This assessment must be comparable to the peer review that is obligatory for the acknowledgement of research schools, and it must, to a large extent, be written by international peers; 3. The assessment committee recommends that the institute admit individuals either onto the board, or into a programme committee, who have experience in the field of Science System Assessment or Technology Assessment and who have good political antennae. This concerns people from business, public administration and science.
The Cabinet standpoint On behalf of the cabinet, the minister of Education, Culture and Science, Ms M.J.A. van der Hoeven, formulated a standpoint on the report of the assessment committee and the self- 40 Self-Assessment
assessment of the Rathenau Instituut in a letter dated 20 February 2007, which was presented to the chairman of the House of Representatives (TK meeting year 2006-2007, 29338, no. 58).
The cabinet’s reaction to recommendations of the assessment committee follows:
Meeting year 2006–2007 29 338 Science budget 2004 No. 58 LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SCIENCE
To the Chairman of the House of Representatives of the States-General
The Hague, 20 February 2007
In this letter I present the cabinet’s reaction to the assessment of the Rathenau Instituut.
The assessment committee of the Rathenau Instituut offered me its report on 29 November 2006 and I sent it to you on 13 December 2006, together with the self-assessment report of the institute.
The assessment task on the work of the Rathenau Instituut According to article 8 of its Governmental Decree, every five years the Rathenau Instituut is assessed on its effectiveness and efficiency. This happens through an independent committee, partly based on a report by the institute itself on its activities and working methods.
The minister of Education, Culture and Science is responsible for the institute and funds it. The Rathenau Instituut works for the cabinet, society as a whole, and parliament. From the beginning, its task has been to contribute to public debate and the formation of political opinion on issues concerning scientific and technological developments. The new task of science system assessment (started in 2005) is organized in support of science policy, for which the minister of Education, Culture and Science is responsible. The institute has a unique task and status. It does not classify under advisory bodies, planning agencies or regular institutions for policy research. It performs scientific research, and it is placed under the management of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW), but its field of activity, expertise needed and network span wider than research alone, and its role demands an independent position with regard to the science system.
This time, the assessment committee consisted of Mr C.G.A. Cornielje (chairman), Ms drs. J.C. Witteveen-Hevinga (deputy chairman), Prof. ing. W. Zegveld and Prof. Dr. A. Soeteman. Mr Cornielje and Ms Witteveen are both former members of parliament. I made this choice considering the Rathenau Instituut’s task to support the formation of political opinion and considering the relationship that the institute has meanwhile built with the House of Representatives.
Because of the high importance of the new task, science system assessment, I asked the assessment committee to give advice on the optimal embedment of the task within the institute, and on the conditions under which the institute can perform its tasks from an independent position. I also asked them to investigate how to safeguard the institute’s independent position in relation to the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (responsible for the management of the institute). Furthermore, I asked the committee to consider how the institute fulfils its tasks, also with regard to the recommendations of the previous assessment committee (in 1999).
Below I will report the (main) recommendations of the assessment committee, and the standpoint that the cabinet takes in this and hereby presents to you. The standpoint takes into consideration Rathenau Instituut 41
the cabinet’s resigned status. Decisions that go hand in hand with a broadening of tasks or an increase in budget will be up to the next cabinet.
Quality, name and profile of the Rathenau Instituut The assessment committee believes that the Rathenau Instituut has followed up on the recommendations of the previous assessment committee well, delivers good quality and is creating an increasingly better profile in the Netherlands, both for parliament as well as for citizens. This characterization is on the technology assessment work of the institute, because the science system assessment task was only started very recently. The committee believes that the Rathenau Instituut knows how to find refreshing working methods and involve new audiences with scientific developments that have an effect on society. The Rathenau Instituut is active in a European context, too. It has good relations with its European sister institutions and does work for the STOA panel (STOA = Scientific Technology Options Assessment) of the European Parliament.
However, the final goal has not yet been reached, according to the assessment committee. The Rathenau Instituut should get more publicity and a better profile, also within parliament. Members of parliament that know the institute see it as reliable, respectable and objective, and the Rathenau Instituut’s recommendations influenced political decision making in various cases. But on the whole, the institute is not enough well-known within parliament. According to the assessment committee this is, firstly, because the Rathenau Instituut is focused on the long(er) term effects of scientific and technological developments, while the House of Representatives sooner focuses on the short term. Temporarily specialized chamber committees (such as the thematic committee of Technology Policy) are more focused on the long term, and therefore collaboration is easier with them. According to the assessment committee, a second complication between the institute and the House of Representatives is that the latter is divided into sector committees. This means that the work of the Rathenau Instituut can be very relevant to a specific committee without the House of Representatives as a whole being aware of the contribution. Otherwise, the assessment committee has understood that the Senate is interested in the recommendations of the Rathenau Instituut.
The assessment committee makes a few suggestions to strengthen the name and the profile of the Rathenau Instituut. These suggestions are partially focused on actors other than the government.
Firstly, the committee advises that the traffic between the cabinet, the House of Representatives and the Rathenau Instituut takes place more formally, which should lead to a better utilization and effect of the work of the Rathenau Instituut. To that end, the cabinet must react to publications by the Rathenau Instituut with a standpoint within a fixed period, and the House of Representatives can discuss this standpoint. The activity programmes of the House of Representatives and of the institute must be better attuned to one another, and the House of Representatives must share what action is taken as a result of the publications of the Rathenau Instituut. The standing committee for Education, Culture and Science must safeguard these procedures. The Rathenau Instituut must also focus more on the Senate, according to the assessment committee.
The cabinet is pleased that the assessment committee ascertained a rising trend in the development of the work and the image of the Rathenau Instituut, and acknowledges this. The cabinet welcomes the Senate’s wish to also make use of the Rathenau Instituut’s work and expertise. The cabinet is also convinced that good working agreements between parliament and the Rathenau Instituut can lead to higher benefits from the institute’s work for society. However, it is up to parliament whether to discuss these suggestions and follow up on them.
With regard to the recommendations on cabinet standpoints on the Rathenau Instituut’s publications, the cabinet reacts as follows. Producing a cabinet standpoint on the Rathenau Instituut’s publications is chiefly worthwhile if it leads to a more thorough discussion on the subject of the publication – in general the (possible) effects of specific scientific and technological developments. It can even be worthwhile to produce a standpoint on a specific point within a publication. In this way, the cabinet will weigh the work of the Rathenau Instituut and judge on a case-by-case basis whether a cabinet standpoint is desirable. At the same time, it may just as well 42 Self-Assessment
lead to a deepened political debate if the House of Representatives (or the Senate) will decide to form a standpoint itself based on the work of the Rathenau Instituut, without the cabinet interfering first. After all, the institute’s work is partially focused on supporting parliament in its formation of opinions and decisions. The cabinet would like the House of Representatives (and the Senate) to consider this possibility.
The assessment committee also recommends that the Rathenau Instituut build a network of organizations that are involved with the societal effects of genomics, nanotechnologies and medical technology. This can lead to the dissemination of the Rathenau Instituut’s debating techniques and also enable co-funding by new parties. The cabinet approves of situations where collaboration leads to synergy. Whenever the Rathenau Instituut gains expertise, collaboration with other parties will be seem sensible and this will lead to a more efficient use of public means.
Fast improvements in science system assessment The assessment committee praises the choice to develop science system assessment at the Rathenau Instituut and it considers science system assessment much needed for a good foundation for science policy and political debate on science policy: “Improved insight into the functioning of the science system through science system analyses can make an indispensable contribution to counteracting fragmentation and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the knowledge infrastructure. Based on the results of these analyses, essential, transparent decisions can be made, also on the related public flow of money, the goal being the strengthening of the knowledge infrastructure in the public sector. Given this context, the assessment committee praises the fact that the additional task of science system assessment is entrusted to the Rathenau Instituut.” It believes that the independence of the institute with regard to the science system must be safeguarded, and it recommends that the institute’s expertise be built faster and stronger than was initially anticipated. It considers current available means insufficient to this end.
The cabinet approves of the assessment committee’s analysis and recommendations and endorses the necessity of a powerful science system assessment function at the Rathenau Instituut. After all, the institute will have to provide analyses on which the upcoming cabinet can base its science policy. This will fill the knowledge gap that exists today. As the cabinet stated in the Science Budget 2004: “Much information is available on the functioning of the science system as a whole, but it is often fragmented and not sufficiently systematic. Important questions remain unanswered or call for ad hoc studies.” The assessment committee came to the conclusion that more recent analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch science system, too, cover issues only partially and are not geared to each other. Therefore, the cabinet will make sure the Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut will be adjusted so science system assessment becomes a normal task of the Rathenau Instituut. This also means an authoritative expert on science system assessment must be included in the Rathenau Instituut’s board.
In order to strengthen expertise, an addition to the workforce is needed, and this requires extra means. The next cabinet will make a decision on the elaboration and funding of the new task, and subsequently inform parliament.
The committee also recommends that before the Rathenau Instituut’s future evaluations take place, first international peers must test the scientific quality of the institute’s productions, in the same way that research schools are examined for their acknowledgement. The cabinet considers the scientific testing of the Rathenau Instituut’s work a meaningful incentive for achievement. The cabinet expects that the KNAW will ensure that the Rathenau Instituut’s work will be applied in relevant quality assessments of Dutch research according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol. This, too, will be included in the Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut.
Incidentally, specific to the science system assessment publications, the cabinet can decide to give a reaction. This option also exists for parliament, of course, since it can also use the analyses in its own role towards science policy.
Rathenau Instituut 43
Relationship between Rathenau Instituut and KNAW At the time it was chosen to place the Rathenau Instituut under the management of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW). This way, the institute could enjoy the scale- benefits of the management of a larger organization. This construction also enhanced the image of being “associated with the science community and reliable”. Meanwhile, the KNAW is working on professionalizing and streamlining the organization’s management itself and the scientific institutes for which it is responsible. However, it is important that the Rathenau Instituut’s unique character, expertise, role and financial position remain intact. This is all the more important now the science system assessment task was added to the institute. The Rathenau Instituut is well associated with the scientific community and must maintain high scientific quality in its studies. At the same, time the institute has an independent position with regard to the scientific community and therefore also with regard to the KNAW. The assessment committee considered how best to manage this tension. It concludes that the Rathenau Instituut’s position with the KNAW is preferred over other options. The Rathenau Instituut benefits from the construction with the KNAW from the standpoint of continuity and professional management. Moreover, positioning beneath another umbrella organization will give rise to the same tension. Positioning directly beneath the minister is undesirable considering the institute’s services to parliament. However, the assessment committee does believe that the Rathenau Instituut’s own, independent position with regard to the KNAW must be safeguarded by means of clear, written agreements with the KNAW, and that the minister of Education, Culture and Science must supervise that these agreements are complied with, for which the committee does give recommendations. I consider that a useful suggestion and I will consult with the KNAW to draw up these agreements.
The minister of Education, Culture and Science,
M. J. A. van der Hoeven House of Representatives, meeting year 2006–2007, 29 338, no. 58
44 Self-Assessment
Annex 2 Governmental Decree
Governmental Decree by the minister of Education, Culture and Science of 3 July 2009, no. OWB/FO/130825, determining the revision of the Governmental Decree by the State Secretary of Education and Science of 19 April 1994, no. OWB/FO-93070908, concerning the adjustment of the Rathenau Instituut (Governmental Decree for the Rathenau Instituut)
De Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, Besluit:
Artikel 1 Begripsbepalingen In dit besluit wordt verstaan onder: a. Minister: de Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap; b. Instituut: het instituut, genoemd in artikel 2 van dit besluit; c. KNAW: de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, gevestigd te Amsterdam; d. WRR: de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, gevestigd te Den Haag; e. WHW: de Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Artikel 2 Instelling 1. Er is een Nederlands instituut voor ‘Technology Assessment’ en ‘Science System Assessment’, genaamd Rathenau Instituut. 2. Het instituut is gevestigd te Den Haag.
Artikel 3 Taken 1. Het instituut heeft als taak bij te dragen aan het maatschappelijke debat en de politieke oordeelsvorming over vraagstukken die samenhangen met of het gevolg zijn van wetenschappelijke en of technologische ontwikkelingen waaronder de ethische, de maatschappelijke, de culturele en de wettelijke aspecten daarvan. Het instituut levert in het bijzonder bijdragen aan de politieke oordeelsvorming in de beide Kamers van de Staten- Generaal en in het Europese parlement. 2. Het instituut heeft voorts tot taak het inzicht te vergroten in de werking van het wetenschapssysteem en daarbij de beschikbare gegevens te integreren en toegankelijk te maken en om ontbrekende data te verzamelen. Het instituut heeft hierbij tot taak hierover gevraagd en ongevraagd informatie te verschaffen aan het kabinet, de beide Kamers van de Staten-Generaal en betrokken partijen in de wetenschappelijke wereld. 3. Het instituut zoekt bij de uitvoering van zijn taken aansluiting bij relevante maatschappelijke actoren. 4. Het instituut kan ter ondersteuning van zijn taken zijn werkterrein dienovereenkomstig uitbreiden en aansluiting zoeken bij onder meer zijn Europese zusterorganisaties. 5. Ter ondersteuning van haar taken kan het instituut onderzoek verrichten of doen verrichten.
Artikel 4 Bestuur 1. Het instituut heeft een bestuur bestaande uit een voorzitter en ten hoogste acht overige leden. Rathenau Instituut 45
2. De voorzitter en de overige leden worden op voordracht van het bestuur van het instituut benoemd door de minister, gehoord het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW en de WRR. Bij de benoeming wordt zoveel mogelijk rekening gehouden met een evenwichtige verdeling van de zetels over mannen en vrouwen. 3. De leden worden benoemd op persoonlijke titel en op grond van hun deskundigheid met betrekking tot en affiniteit met de maatschappelijke en ethische aspecten van wetenschap en of technologie, het functioneren van het wetenschapssysteem en met het wetenschap- en technologiebeleid. 4. De benoeming geschiedt voor een termijn van ten hoogste vier jaren. De leden kunnen éénmaal voor een termijn van ten hoogste vier jaren worden herbenoemd. 5. De voorzitter en de overige leden kunnen door de minister, gehoord het bestuur van het instituut, het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW en de WRR, om zwaarwichtige redenen worden geschorst en tussentijds ontslagen. 6. Het bestuur heeft een secretaris. De directeur, bedoeld in artikel 6, derde lid, vervult de functie van secretaris en woont de vergadering van het bestuur bij. 7. Het bestuur kan zijn werkzaamheden regelen in een reglement. Het zendt dit reglement ter kennisneming aan de minister. 8. Het bestuur kan een programmaraad instellen ten behoeve van het instituut, die het bestuur adviseert over het voorgenomen werkprogramma zoals voorgesteld door de directeur.
Artikel 5 Programma 1. Het bestuur stelt ter uitvoering van de taken van het instituut een tweejarig werkprogramma vast. Alvorens tot vaststelling van een werkprogramma over te gaan, voert het bestuur overleg met betrokken instellingen en organisaties, waaronder in ieder geval de KNAW en de WRR, alsmede met de minister. 2. Het bestuur dient het werkprogramma in bij de minister vóór 1 januari van het eerste kalenderjaar van de twee kalenderjaren waarop het werkprogramma betrekking heeft. Het bestuur maakt tegelijk met de indiening bij de minister het werkprogramma openbaar en doet daarvan mededeling in de Staatscourant. 3. De minister voorziet het werkprogramma van een standpunt. De minister doet daarvan en van het werkprogramma afschrift toekomen aan de beide Kamers van de Staten-Generaal. 4. Het bestuur stelt jaarlijks een inhoudelijk verslag vast over de werkzaamheden van het afgelopen jaar. In het verslag maakt het bestuur melding van de wijze waarop bij de uitvoering van het werkprogramma rekening is gehouden met het standpunt van de minister en met de eventuele opmerkingen van de beide Kamers van de Staten-Generaal. Het bestuur zendt het verslag toe aan de minister. Het verslag wordt door de minister ter kennisneming naar de beide Kamers van de Staten-Generaal gezonden.
Artikel 6 Beheer van het instituut 1. De KNAW voert het beheer over het instituut. Daarbij waarborgt de KNAW het inhoudelijk onafhankelijk functioneren van het instituut. 2. Overeenkomstig artikel 13.1, zesde lid, van de WHW vertegenwoordigt de voorzitter van het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW het instituut in en buiten rechte. 46 Self-Assessment
3. Het instituut heeft een directeur die wordt benoemd door het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW, in overeenstemming met het bestuur van het instituut. 4. De directeur geeft de dagelijkse leiding aan het instituut. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de behoorlijke uitvoering van de volgende taken: a. de voorbereiding en uitvoering van besluiten van het bestuur van het instituut en van het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW, voor zover deze het instituut betreffen; b. het voorbereiden, nemen en uitvoeren van besluiten met betrekking tot de bedrijfsvoering van het instituut; c. het opstellen van een begroting voor het komend boekjaar waarmee het instituut uitvoering kan geven aan zijn werkprogramma; d. het opstellen van een financieel verslag waarmee verantwoording wordt afgelegd over de besteding van de middelen in het afgelopen boekjaar; en e. het opstellen van het inhoudelijke verslag, bedoeld in artikel 5, vierde lid. 5. Het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW verleent aan de directeur het benodigde mandaat voor de uitvoering van zijn verantwoordelijkheden. Aan de uitoefening van het mandaat kan het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW, overeenkomstig de Regeling standaardmandaat bedrijfsvoering KNAW, voorwaarden verbinden. 6. De directeur en het overige personeel van het instituut zijn in dienst van de KNAW.
Artikel 7 Financiering, begroting en verantwoording 1. De KNAW stelt onverwijld het in de rijksbijdrage, bedoeld in artikel 2.6a van de WHW, ten behoeve van het instituut genoemde bedrag ter beschikking aan het instituut. 2. Het bestuur van het instituut stelt de instituutsbegroting vast. Het besluit tot vaststelling behoeft de instemming van het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW die deze gemotiveerd kan weigeren. De KNAW draagt er zorg voor dat de begroting van het instituut, na verleende instemming, onderdeel uitmaakt van de eigen begroting, bedoeld in artikel 2.8 WHW. 3. Het bestuur van het instituut stelt het financieel verslag van het instituut vast. Het besluit tot vaststelling behoeft de instemming van het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW die deze instemming gemotiveerd kan weigeren. De KNAW draagt er zorg voor dat het financieel verslag van het instituut, na verleende instemming, onderdeel uitmaakt van de eigen verslaglegging, bedoeld in artikel 2.9 WHW. 4. Tenminste éénmaal per jaar voert het bestuur van het instituut overleg met de minister inzake de Rijksbijdrage aan het instituut alsmede over de voorbereiding en uitvoering van het werkprogramma.
Artikel 8 Evaluatie 1. Elke vijf jaren wordt het instituut door een evaluatiecommissie beoordeeld op in ieder geval haar effectiviteit en doelmatigheid, mede aan de hand van een door het instituut op te stellen rapportage over haar activiteiten en werkwijze. Het resultaat van de evaluatie wordt uitgebracht nadat het bestuur van het instituut hierover is gehoord. 2. Voorafgaand aan de vijfjaarlijkse evaluatie laat het instituut de wetenschappelijke kwaliteit van zijn werk beoordelen door binnenlandse en buitenlandse wetenschappers van bewezen hoge kwaliteit die deskundig zijn op één of meer van de gebieden waar het instituut zich op beweegt. Rathenau Instituut 47
3. De minister stelt ten behoeve van de evaluatie een externe commissie in. Alvorens tot de instelling over te gaan, pleegt de minister overleg met de KNAW en de WRR over de samenstelling van de commissie. 4. De beoordeling door de evaluatiecommissie en de rapportage van het instituut worden aan de minister gezonden, die deze stukken, vergezeld van een standpunt, aan de beide Kamers van de Staten-Generaal zendt.
Artikel 9 Geschillenregeling, inwerkingtreding en overgangsbepaling 1. Indien zich geschillen voordoen tussen de KNAW en het instituut omtrent het onafhankelijk functioneren van het instituut, dan kunnen deze door het algemeen bestuur van de KNAW of het bestuur van het instituut worden voorgelegd aan de minister. De minister kan een onafhankelijke bemiddelaar aanwijzen die een voor de KNAW en het instituut bindend advies uitbrengt. 2. Dit besluit treedt in werking met ingang van de tweede dag na de dagtekening van de Staatscourant, waarin het wordt geplaatst. 3. Het besluit van de Staatssecretaris van onderwijs, cultuur en wetenschappen van 19 april 1994, kenmerk OWB/FO-93070908, wordt ingetrokken. 4. Bij de toepassing van dit besluit worden de rechtsgevolgen van besluiten die op grond van het in het vorige lid bedoelde besluit zijn genomen zoveel mogelijk in acht genomen.
Artikel 10 Citeertitel Dit besluit wordt aangehaald als: Instellingsbesluit Rathenau Instituut. Dit besluit zal met de toelichting in de Staatscourant worden geplaatst. De Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, R.H.A. Plasterk.
TOELICHTING In 1986 is het Rathenau Instituut opgericht onder de naam Nederlandse Organisatie voor Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek (NOTA). In 1994 bij een aanpassing van het instellingsbesluit is de omschrijving van het instituut aangepast en is de term ‘technology assessment’ in het besluit opgenomen, om zichtbaar te maken dat het instituut moet bijdragen aan het maatschappelijke debat en de politieke oordeelsvorming over vraagstukken rond wetenschappelijke en technologische ontwikkelingen, waaronder ethische, maatschappelijke, culturele en wettelijke aspecten daarvan. In dat besluit kreeg het instituut de naam het ‘Rathenau Instituut’, naar de voorzitter van de Adviesgroep voor de maatschappelijke gevolgen van de Micro-Electronica, die in 1980 al wees op het belang van technology assessment.
Het Rathenau Instituut werkt van af het begin voor het kabinet, de samenleving in den brede én het (Europese) parlement. Het instituut is geen afzonderlijke echtspersoon, maar heeft wel een unieke taak en status. Het valt niet onder de adviesraden, planbureaus en reguliere instellingen voor beleidsonderzoek. Om de verhouding tussen bestuur en ambtelijke organisatie goed te regelen is gekozen voor een constructie van een bestuur (artikel 4) en een instituut met een directeur (artikel 4 en 6), belast met voorbereiding en uitvoering van de besluiten van het bestuur en met de leiding van het instituut. Het instituut is beheersmatig ondergebracht onder de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW). Deze onderbrenging heeft plaatsgevonden, omdat zijn 48 Self-Assessment
werkterrein en benodigde vaardigheden en netwerk breder zijn dan onderzoek in strikte zin en met name omdat zijn rol een onafhankelijke positie ten opzichte van het wetenschapsbestel vereist. Bij de voordracht van bestuursleden voor het Rathenau Instituut is naast de KNAW ook een rol toegekend aan de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR).
Sinds 2005 is aan het Rathenau Instituut naast de technology assessment taak, een nieuwe taak ‘science system assessment’ toegekend ter onderbouwing van het wetenschapsbeleid en het politieke debat daarover. Het Rathenau Instituut richt zich met de science system assessment taak op het vergroten, integreren en toegankelijk maken van de kennis over het functioneren van het wetenschapssysteem. Het doel is om met deze kennis het wetenschapbeleid, de politiek en de wetenschapsorganisaties toegankelijke en relevante informatie te verschaffen ten behoeve van het beleid en besluitvorming. Daarnaast draagt het science system assessment onderzoek bij aan de groei van de kennis over de dynamiek van het wetenschapssysteem. De projecten op het gebied van science system assessment baseren zich op de volgende drie thema’s en bijbehorende hoofdvragen: 1. Evaluaties: Wat is de opbrengst van het wetenschapssysteem in termen van wetenschappelijke excellentie en maatschappelijke impact? Hoe kan dat worden gemeten en in kaart gebracht – op een manier die recht doet aan verschillen tussen disciplines? 2. Verkenningen: Wat zijn de kansrijke ontwikkelingen in bestaande en nieuwe onderzoeksgebieden? Hoe kunnen die worden geïdentificeerd en in kaart gebracht? 3. Analyse van het systeem: Hoe beïnvloeden de institutionele structuur en organisatie het functioneren en de prestaties van het wetenschapssysteem? Welke kenmerken van het systeem dragen bij aan het vergroten van de opbrengst, en welke juist niet? Zijn er daarbij verschillen tussen disciplines: in hoeverre vereisen de verschillende onderzoeksvelden verschillende instituties, organisatievormen en beleid?
Wegens het grote belang van deze nieuwe taak, science system assessment, is in 2006 bij de evaluatie van het Rathenau Instituut aan de Evaluatiecommissie Cornielje gevraagd te adviseren over de optimale inbedding van de science system assessment taak in het instituut en over de voorwaarden waaronder het Instituut vanuit een onafhankelijke positie zijn taken kan uitvoeren. Ook is gevraagd te adviseren hoe de onafhankelijke positie van het Instituut kan worden gewaarborgd in relatie tot de KNAW, die beheersmatig verantwoordelijk is voor het instituut.
De Evaluatiecommissie is lovend over de keuze om science system assessment bij het Rathenau instituut te ontwikkelen en acht deze taak ook hard nodig voor een goede onderbouwing van het wetenschapsbeleid en het politieke debat. Op basis van de resultaten van deze analyses kunnen op transparante wijze de noodzakelijke beslissingen, ook over de ermee verbonden publieke geldstromen, worden genomen met als doel versterking van de kennisinfrastructuur in de publieke sector.
De Evaluatiecommissie is van mening dat alleen een instantie die gezaghebbend en onafhankelijk is, science system assessment effectief kan uitvoeren. De gezaghebbendheid zal ook in het voordeel werken bij het aangaan van netwerken en verbinden van (inter) nationale topwetenschappers. Juist ter waarborging van deze onafhankelijkheid en ter versterking van de benodigde statuur acht de commissie onderbrenging van het Rathenau Instituut binnen de KNAW Rathenau Instituut 49
de beste constructie. Het Rathenau instituut heeft ook baat bij positionering bij de KNAW uit oogpunt van continuïteit en professionele bedrijfsvoering. Het is wel van belang dat het geheel eigen karakter, de eigen expertise, de eigen rol en de eigen financiële positie van het Rathenau instituut behouden blijft. Dit is des te belangrijker nu de taak science system assessment aan het instituut is toegevoegd. De evaluatiecommissie vindt daarom dat de onafhankelijke positie van het Rathenau Instituut ten opzichte van de KNAW wel moet worden gewaarborgd door duidelijke schriftelijke afspraken met de KNAW en dat de minister van OCW moet toezien op naleving van die afspraken.
In de kabinetsreactie op de evaluatie van het Rathenau Instituut heeft het vorige kabinet vermeld zich te kunnen vinden in de analyses en aanbevelingen van de evaluatiecommissie en onderschrijft de noodzaak van een krachtige science system assessment functie bij het Rathenau Instituut. Het kabinet heeft aangegeven er voor te zorgen dat het instellingsbesluit van het Rathenau Instituut wordt aangepast in de zin dat science system assessment een reguliere taak van het Rathenau wordt.
Daartoe is artikel 3 aangepast. Verder is toegezegd met de KNAW in overleg te zullen treden om afspraken te maken ter verdere waarborging van de onafhankelijke positie van het Rathenau instituut ten opzichte van de KNAW. Die afspraken hebben geresulteerd in een aantal aanpassingen van het instellingsbesluit met name in de artikelen 4, 6 en 7.
In artikel 4 is opgenomen dat de benoeming van de voorzitter en overige bestuursleden voortaan geschiedt op voordracht van het bestuur van het instituut in plaats van op voordracht van de KNAW en de WRR. Hiermee wordt de inhoudelijke programmatische onafhankelijkheid van het Rathenau verder benadrukt. Indachtig de aanbevelingen van de evaluatiecommissie, verwacht de minister dat het bestuur naast deskundigen op het gebied van technology assessment en science system assessment ook personen voordraagt die over een goede politieke antenne beschikken. In de benoemingsprocedure is naast de KNAW ook aan de WRR een rol toegekend bij de voordracht van bestuursleden voor het Rathenau Instituut, omdat de WRR zich beweegt op het snijvlak van wetenschap en beleid, de regering adviseert over grote maatschappelijke en beleidsthema’s, met een duidelijke oriëntatie op de toekomst én een gezaghebbend en onafhankelijk adviesorgaan is.
In artikel 6 zijn de verantwoordelijkheden en het bijbehorende mandaat van de directeur van het instituut nader geëxpliciteerd. Hierbij is een evenwicht gevonden tussen de eigenstandige positie van het instituut en de beheersmatige verantwoordelijkheid van de KNAW. De KNAW kan, met gebruikmaking van de ‘Regeling standaardmandaat bedrijfsvoering KNAW’, nadere voorwaarden stellen aan de uitoefening van het mandaat door de directeur maar alleen voor zover dat in het belang van een goed beheer noodzakelijk is. Het respecteren van het eigenstandige, onafhankelijke karakter van het instituut is hierbij het leidende uitgangspunt.
In de bepaling over de financiering van het instituut (artikel 7) is een beter evenwicht aangebracht tussen het specifieke belang van het Rathenau Instituut om over voldoende middelen voor de 50 Self-Assessment
uitvoering van het werkprogramma te kunnen beschikken en het belang van de KNAW bij een integrale doelmatige en verantwoorde bedrijfsvoering voor de organisatie als geheel.
Tot slot is in het artikel 8 de aanbeveling van de evaluatiecommissie overgenomen om voorafgaand aan volgende evaluaties van het Rathenau Instituut eerst de wetenschappelijke kwaliteit van zijn producten te laten beoordelen door binnenlandse en buitenlandse wetenschappers van bewezen hoge kwaliteit die deskundig zijn op één of meer van de gebieden waar het instituut zich op beweegt.
Dit besluit beoogt geen wijziging aan te brengen in de rechtsgevolgen van besluiten die op grond van het instellingsbesluit van 19 april 1994 zijn genomen.
De Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, R.H.A. Plasterk.
Rathenau Instituut 51
Annex 3 Activity programme and projects
The Rathenau Instituut biennially draws up an activity programme. The institute selects issues that qualify for an initial orientation. This concerns subjects of which it is believed that there is a need for more systematic or balanced information for the formation of political opinion, or a need for a broadening or deepening of public debate. Signals from the institute’s network, but also personal observation and research, can lead to the scheduling of activities. Moreover, the Rathenau Instituut asks organizations and people explicitly for possibly interesting subjects. An extensive orientation on relevant subjects takes place preceding each biennial activity programme.
The selection of subjects takes place based on three criteria: subjects must have a technological or scientific component; subjects must have political, societal or moral relevance; and public or political debate on these subjects is anticipated and will be stimulated and supported.
Subjects can first be explored lightly or studied in-depth.
Deliberation takes place on the activity programme with the minister of Education, Culture and Science, KNAW, WRR and parliament. The Rathenau Instituut presents the activity programme to the minister who supplies it with his or her standpoint and passes on to parliament. At the same time the Rathenau Instituut publishes the new activity programme in the Government Gazette.
In this annex we discuss the substantive development of the institute’s activity programme.
Moreover, nine projects are portrayed. The cases are chosen in such a way that they give an impression of the breadth of the programme and the diversity of approaches. They also show the changes in strategy of the past period. More activities are being organized in the projects that stimulate public debate and support the formation of political opinion. In order for the institute to be authoritative, project co-workers more frequently perform the studies themselves. With this we see a great improvement in the communication within and about the projects, and that thereby the ways of communicating have increased.
The following projects will be handled: Societal impact of Research Bibliometrics and Field Studies The Glass Body Human Tissue Nanotechnology Databases and the Electronic Health Record Knowledge Chamber Human Enhancement 52 Self-Assessment
30 Years Research Funding Management of Research Groups
In the description we will discuss the project’s triggers, the stakeholders with whom we collaborated and/or on whom the project had an impact, the activities and productions, and lastly, the assessment and impact.
Activity programmes 2006-2012
Five activity programmes were developed over the course of the assessment period. The overview below shows the themes of the various activity programmes. The choice of theme reflects a certain genealogy. In 2006, the institute worked with two separate activity programmes for the Technology Assessment task and the Science System Assessment task. For this last task, a four-year activity programme was written, which was strongly focused on the task’s advancement. The activity programme for 2009-2010 was the first programme for both tasks, which were then still planned separately.
In the activity programme for 2011-2012, the two tasks are unified. Both tasks are worked out in the themes ‘convergent key technologies’, ‘brains and cognition’, and ‘the value of science’; these themes are used for joint project activities by the two departments.
Rathenau Instituut 53
54 Self-Assessment
Case 1 Societal Impact of Research
ERiC-‘handreiking’ (assistance report), SIAMPI, ‘Waardevol – Indicatoren voor valorisatie’ (Valuable - Indicators for Valorisation)
Research assessment in the Netherlands takes place according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). The variety of research has become greater, and people increasingly ask what research contributes to society. Various institutes complained about a lack of adequate assessment techniques for measuring the societal quality and relevance of research.
In response to this need, the new Science System Assessment group quickly set out with the goal to develop a methodology for the assessment of societal impact. This gave rise to various sub- projects. Firstly, the ERiC project (2006-2011), for which Rathenau collaborated with KNAW, NWO, HBO-raad and VSNU for the elaboration of current assessment protocols. Secondly, a European project, SIAMPI (2008-2011), that aims to develop a method for impact analysis based on various European experiences, that is practicable for the European Commission. Thirdly, a project on valorisation, which was executed in collaboration with STW and Technopolis on behalf of the National Valorisation Committee.
Evaluation of Research in Context The ERiC project (Evaluation of Research in Context) started in 2006 with the goal of developing concepts and methods for the assessment of the societal relevance of research.
In 2007, two meetings were held in which policy advisers and researchers could brainstorm on the assessment of the societal value of research. Following this, the Rathenau Instituut was asked to organize pilots, the involvement of the institute with the ERiC project was formalized, and the institute became in charge of the project’s secretariat.
In four pilot studies, analysis took place together with the faculties involved on how societal impact was being realized, and how this could be translated into an assessment methodology. The pilot studies were conducted at the faculties of Mechanical Engineering (University of Twente), Law (VU University and other universities), Electrical Engineering (Eindhoven University of Technology) and Architecture (Delft University of Technology). At the last two faculties, the results were actually used in the research. Furthermore, the experiences of the assessments of a number of readerships at the HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht and of the SCP were incorporated.
The results of the pilots were used to create an assistance report for the ex-post assessments of scientific groups (the SEP protocol) and of readerships at polytechnics (BKO protocol). The core reason for this assistance report is to help the institute describe its own mission and goals well, so that the assessment may take into account the impact desired. Subsequently, indicators that show to what extent the targets were achieved can be developed and used. In March 2010 the assistance report was presented to the managements of the VSNU, KNAW, and HBO-raad. Reports were also published in English: Evaluating the Societal Relevance of Academic Research. A Guide and Evaluation of Research in Context: a Quick Scan of an Emerging Field.
Rathenau Instituut 55
The assistance report ERiC was well received at the management level in research organizations. The assessment of the societal value of research is now on the agenda.
More than a thousand copies of the assistance report ‘Assessment of the Societal Relevance of Scientific Research’ were distributed. Reference is made to the assistance report ERiC in the SEP protocol and the BKO protocol. Workshops had been organized in the Netherlands with the HBO- raad and Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) to make the methodology better known with employees of polytechnics and universities and to ensure the assistance report is brought into practice. The methodology is clarified in a practice-oriented article in the journal HO Management.
Much attention was given to the project in the press (newspaper and radio) when the assistance report was published. This also led to a few critical remarks, for example by Vincent Icke, professor in theoretical astronomy, who wrote in his blog for NRCnext that it is nonsensical to demand up front that scientific research must be useful.
The research results were also presented by the Prime-ENID conference in Paris on new indicators for scientific research (2010) and published as a scientific article in Research Evaluation (2011).
SIAMPI SIAMPI is a European project that arose from ERiC. At an international meeting in 2007 on Societal impact Assessment of Research, KNAW and the Rathenau Instituut took the lead in formulating a proposal for a so-called KP7-call. The goal of the project was to make recommendations on how the societal impact of research could be assessed, bearing in mind the various assessment situations. The SIAMPI project was rounded off in 2011.
56 Self-Assessment
The SIAMPI project was executed with partners in Spain, the UK and France. The central idea in SIAMI is that societal impact can be assessed by looking at productive interactions between researchers and stakeholders. The goal was, however, that the method could be adopted by the assessment methods of the Framework Programmes. This did not happen, because the Commission’s attention shifted from the societal impact of research to the societal impact of policy proposals. However, it appears that the project did have an influence on the national situations of Spain, the UK and the Netherlands. The concept of productive interactions was later included in the assistance report ERiC.
A scientific article on the SIAMPI project appeared in Research Evaluation in a special issue on societal impact assessment. Workshops were also organized within the project framework and lectures were held at the EASST conference (2010) and the Prime-ENID conference in Rome (2011).
The concept of productive interactions also used in impact studies for the research programmes ‘Kennis voor Klimaat / Klimaat voor Ruimte’ (Knowledge for Climate / Climate for Space) and Next Generation Infrastructures. The publications appeared late 2011.
Valorisation A third track within the project on the societal impact of research is valorisation. In October 2010 in response to the growing discussion in policymaking and in institutions on the organization of valorisation, the Rathenau Instituut organized a meeting for people from research and policy. At the meeting it was explored to what extent the results of societal impact studies could lead to a new approach to valorisation. In the past, during ‘Landelijke Dagen van de Valorisatie’ (National Valorisation Days), workshops had already been organized on societal impact.
The workshops and the relations that followed resulted in an assignment from the National Valorisation Committee to develop indicators for valorisation. With the help of STW and Technopolis, insights and experiences with valorisation were used for a model with which knowledge organizations can monitor valorisation. This model was published in the report Waardevol.
Stakeholders praise the report because of its practical nature. The report seems to have been published at the right moment, considering the discussion on innovation and valorisation in and outside of politics. Various meetings were organized in order to make the report better known, a radio interview took place on the subject (BNR, October 2011), an article was published in Het Financieele Dagblad and in November the Rathenau Instituut organized a Valorisation Parade together with De Jonge Akademie within the framework of the institute’s jubilee year. The effect of these various activities is that the institute is now asked by many researchers and research organizations to think along about their valorisation activities.
In January 2012, together with the Chamber Committee of Education, Culture and Science, the subject of valorisation was discussed in preparation for a consultation with the State Secretary on valorisation. The committee decided to request the State Secretary of Education, Culture and Rathenau Instituut 57
Science to present the House of Representatives with a reaction from cabinet on the report Waardevol.
Case 2 Bibliometrics and Field Studies
This project has a twofold goal: on the one hand, methods are being developed for doing scientometric research, on the other hand, these methods are being applied in the Rathenau Instituut’s own research. The institute developed software, SAINT (Science Assessment Integrated Network Toolkit), which can search large datasets faster and more thoroughly than was previously possible. In spring 2009 the Rathenau Instituut presented the first version, which has since been developed further. The toolkit is freely accessible to researchers. The Rathenau Instituut chose to keep SAINT open-source, so others can make use of the software free of charge.
The software was applied to analyses on the dynamics of research fields such as taxonomy, transdisciplinary education research and urology, and to research on the role of scientists in industrial development.
Taxonomy is a field of research that had spent a long time in the background of biology. Because of the attention for biodiversity and the possibilities for large-scale databases, the past decade has seen more attention for the field. In collaboration with the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT), bibliometric research was performed on the development of taxonomy. The results were presented on meetings of the EDIT.
The study on transdisciplinary education research aimed to discover to what extent neurosciences and education research were connected to each other scientifically. From the study it became clear that this relationship is very weak and that the promise which is often made in public debate, that insights into the workings of the brain are important to education, is not (yet) visible in scientific development. The results are published in a Rathenau report on transdisciplinary education research.
The study on the development of urology is an example of the increased interest of third parties in the expertise gained. By request of the Dutch Urology Association (NVU), a bibliometric analysis was made of publications and collaborations in the field. The NVU had asked for this within the framework of the debates on the scaling-up, profiling and specialization of medical research and medical care, and the need to develop a collective scientific policy. The results were presented late 2011 at the yearly NVU congress.
The fourth example is a study on knowledge transfer between universities and industry. The software tools developed aid the analysis of the relation between scientific articles and patents, which is needed to research the roles that top scientists have in knowledge transfer. A project spin- off was the development of a method to distinguish between authors when authors having common names. This study is part of the running project ‘Op Zoek naar de Technologische Match’ (In search of the technological match).
58 Self-Assessment
Bibliometrische analyse van het onderwijsonderzoek
. From: F. Merkx et al., 2009, The Development of Transdisciplinary Learning Science: Promise or Practice? Rathenau Instituut.
The SAINT software was presented at the e-Social Science conference in Cologne (June 2009) and at the summer school of the Rathenau Instituut in September 2009. Users of SAINT outside of the Rathenau Instituut are often policymakers and researchers who focus on, for example, science policy studies or technology studies. They gave positive feedback. As a result of their feedback, SAINT was and still continues to be developed further. For example, the basic packet (the ISI Data Importer, Matrix Compiler and Word Splitter) has been extended with Network Tools and a preview- version of the Calculator.
Case 3 The Glass Body
The festival Het Glazen Lichaam (The Glass Body), which was held on 2 February 2008, was a coproduction of NRC Handelsblad and the Rathenau Instituut. For the duration of an evening, visitors partook in all sorts of activities and presentations on the increasing transparency of bodies through new technologies. The festival aimed to show what modern technology is capable of, in a fun and interesting way. And what the consequences can be for the privacy and autonomy of people. The intention was to encourage visitors to think about these issues and form opinions. The festival was inspired by a previous festival, Brain Spotting. As this had been a success, NRC Handelsblad approached the Rathenau Instituut to create a sequel.
The festival was focused on people who were interested in technology: citizens who are affected by new technologies in their personal lives. The festival organizers wanted to make visitors aware of Rathenau Instituut 59
the fact that technology determines the way in which people deal with each other, and what they consider normal, abnormal, good and bad.
The fifty speakers and over 1150 visitors of The Glass Body submerged themselves in the both fantastic and fragile consequences of modern technology. The festival’s core message was that modern technology makes humans ‘transparent’: see-through, fragile, made of glass. Not only is more and more information on us being collected and stored, we also put our selves in the spotlight by advertising our personal information on Facebook, YouTube or Google. The audience was challenged to look into the future. How will society change if people share more and more about themselves and keep less private?
The festival took a close look at phenomena such as customer cards, DNA-analysis, CCTV and YouTube. Upon reception at the Rotterdam WTC, people were scanned in a zero-privacy-zone and the data that was gathered this way was projected on a huge screen in the hall. This was an eye- opener and reactions were not always amused. A number of employees of the Rathenau Instituut participated in the programme. There was also a band, dancers and a poet, aimed at adding zest to the atmosphere. Four members of parliament also participated in parts of the programme, namely Gillard (PvdA), Haersma Buma (CDA), Teeven (VVD) and Pechtold (D66). Ms Gillard from PvdA collected parliamentary questions during the festival.
Festival visitors received a complimentary copy of the Rathenau publication Het Glazen Lichaam – Gegrepen door informatie. The festival itself was not free, but the entrance fee (€ 27.50) was not cost-effective. The Rathenau Instituut considered the festival an excellent chance to bring Technology Assessment to a wider audience.
NRC Handelsblad and the Rathenau Instituut shared the effort that was put into setting up the festival. The newspaper booked and paid for the location and promoted the festival. The Rathenau Instituut worked on content, provided people who participated in the programme (both Rathenau employees and third parties) and made use of its own channels to bring attention to the festival.
2000 copies of the publication Het Glazen Lichaam – Gegrepen door informatie were printed. The NRC Handelsblad published various videos on its website (NRC/wetenschap) that can still be viewed today (late 2011). The festival appeared in various media, not only in the NRC newspaper.
Afterwards, a media analysis was done for which people were asked how many of them had heard of the term ‘Het Glazen Lichaam’ (The Glass Body). For NRC-readers this turned out to be about 10 per cent, and for others this was 7 per cent (others, in this case, being people from the Randstad – a conurbation of the four largest Dutch cities and surrounding areas). 48 per cent of festival visitors did not come from the Randstad. A public satisfaction survey showed that visitors rated the festival with an average of 6.9/10.
60 Self-Assessment
The age distribution of participants was comparable to that of the average population. The level of education was higher than average. Considering the festival’s good attendance, media exposure and reputation, the Rathenau Instituut wanted to see another festival in the future. This did not appear financially viable for NRC Handelsblad.
Case 4 Human Tissue
The Rathenau Instituut had three projects heaped under Human Tissue: ‘Dilemmas in Embryo Research’ (2007), ‘Market for Reuse of Tissue’ (2008), and ‘Emerging Markets for Human Tissue’ (2010).
A direct provocation for the project ‘Dilemmas in Embryo Research’ was the temporary moratorium in the Dutch ‘Embryo Act’ that expired in 2007. This was a ban on the use of embryos for scientific research (such as stem cell research). The Rathenau Instituut wanted to stimulate political debate with this project by expounding on the dilemmas that surround the use of embryos for research purposes. Reports appeared on this topic and the media were involved.
This project was continued when the researchers established that an increasing amount of different human tissue is being used or reused, for research, but also for commercial purposes. And for this no suitable policy or legislation existed. A project was started titled ‘Market for Reuse of Tissue’. The central research question was on what exactly happens with our donated human tissue, in practice. In politics, a debate had been going on about the say that donors have on their donated human tissue. A ‘Wet Zeggenschap Lichaamsmateriaal’ (Human Tissue Authority Act) had been in the pipeline for years, but nothing was concrete.
The Rathenau Instituut wanted to advance political and public debate and bring the subject to the attention of a wider audience. After research on the reuse of human tissue was completed, the Rathenau Instituut did a continuation project that was specifically focused on the commercial use of human tissue. This was called ‘Emerging Markets for Human Tissue’.
Not much is known about how these markets function and how big of a business it actually is. What is clear, however, is that technological options have grown for harvesting human tissue, processing it, researching it, storing it and making products out of it. This makes deliberating and designing this Rathenau Instituut 61
market increasingly urgent. What happens with all these materials? What do we consider acceptable, and what is impermissible? Where does trade take place, and between whom? With which motives? And what are the consequences for research and our donation system?
In political debate there was a taboo: that human tissue is worth money. But the fact remains that there is a market for human tissue, indeed. This means that we must think about ways in which money and human tissue can go together well. After all, we desperately need human tissue for research, and also for saving, creating and repairing lives. This urgency will only increase, due to medical technological advances.
Stakeholders The three different projects focused on both politics and society as target groups. These projects’ support committees held, among others, politicians, doctors, representatives of companies that work with human tissue such as Sanquin, people from the Nederlandse Vrouwenraad and from the media. This created ties with both stakeholders and experts. In order to reach society, successful media approaches generated a lot of media attention for the subject in a short space of time, on radio, television and in the newspaper.
Activities and products The Rathenau Instituut commissioned Bureau Veldkamp to hold two large-scale public surveys for the projects ‘Dilemmas in Embryo Research’ and ‘Market for Reuse of Tissue’. Over a thousand Dutch people were questioned on their beliefs on the use of human tissue for various purposes. Furthermore, a sub-survey was conducted on the legal aspects of the reuse of human tissue. Next, the Nederlands Kanker Instituut (Dutch Cancer Institute) surveyed 400 cancer patients on their beliefs on the use of their human tissue after a treatment.
The report Meer dan status alleen. Burgerperspectieven op embryo-onderzoek was presented to State Secretary Bussemaker. In 2008, a Message was sent out to parliament on dilemmas in embryo research. On 24 June 2009, the report Nader gebruik nader onderzocht. Zeggenschap over lichaamsmateriaal was presented to director-general for Public Health Paul Huijts, of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), which is on the progress of a Human Tissue Authority Act. In this report, the Rathenau Instituut makes suggestions for politics and policy. In short, these state that citizens must be better informed on what happens to human tissue within the framework of their treatment. There must be more openness and transparency on what happens with this human tissue, because patients wish to know this. It must be avoided that faith in medical research is damaged.
2010 was spent working on the book Nier te koop – Baarmoeder te huur. Wereldwijde handel in lichaamsmateriaal (Kidney for Sale – Womb for Rent. Worldwide Trade in Human Tissue), which appeared in March 2011 by publisher Bert Bakker. Visits were made and interviews were held with experts from the Netherlands and abroad, to picture trends and to better distinguish facts from fiction. Researchers from the Rathenau Instituut have also done research for the television documentary Baby te koop (Baby for Sale), which was broadcast by BNN in March 2011 on Nederland 3 (a Dutch television channel). Furthermore, the institute cooperated with the makers of the documentary Ei voor later (Egg for Later). A debate took place in November 2011 on the 62 Self-Assessment
preventative storage of egg cells, between employees of the Rathenau Instituut, members of parliament and other experts. The public showed ample interest in this.
Assessment and impact The report Nader gebruik nader onderzocht. Zeggenschap over lichaamsmateriaal (2009) received a lot of media attention. Many newspapers wrote about it and the subject reached the NOS television news and many radio programmes. The researchers also published scientific articles in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal for Medicine) and Tijdschrift voor Gezondheid en Ethiek (Journal for Health and Ethics) and opinion columns in various newspapers. In total, nineteen articles were published. The core message was that most Dutch citizens that have donated human tissue have no idea of its storage or possible reuse.
The most recent book, focused on a large audience, is Nier te koop – Baarmoeder te huur. Wereldwijde handel in lichaamsmateriaal (Kidney for Sale – Womb for Rent. Worldwide Trade in Human Tissue). In 2011 it appeared in eight television and radio programmes, including Pauw & Witteman. The researchers are still being asked for presentations and workshops on this subject.
The project is one of the projects that had a clear political impact. As a result of the book and documentary Baby te koop, a round table discussion was organized by the standing Chamber Committee for Health, Welfare and Sports on the marketization of human tissue. Minister Schippers of Health, Welfare and Sports promised a cabinet response to the book. At this moment, the ministry is working on legal regulations and the National Health Council is working on a report on the subject. Employees of the Rathenau Instituut are involved in this as experts.
Case 5 Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology was first included in the Rathenau Instituut’s activity programme in 2003-2004. In this period, a number of activities were organized that led the then Chamber Committee Technology Policy to put nanotechnology on the political agenda. After various consultations with the House of Representatives, the cabinet decided to develop an integral view on the field of nanotechnology. In order to develop this view, in 2005 the ION, Interdepartementaal Overleg Nanotechnologie (Interdepartmental Consult Nanotechnology), was founded. Since the beginning of the ION, the Rathenau Instituut has especially focused on three lines in the field of nanotechnology that closely correlate to a few themes within the ION.
Rathenau Instituut 63
Public debate The first line in the institute’s activities is the stimulation of public debate. In 2008, the institute published Tien lessen voor een nanodialoog (Ten Lessons for a Nano-dialogue) in which is shown how the government can improve public debate on nanotechnology. In 2009, the Minister of Economic Affairs established a Commissie Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie (Committee Social Dialogue Nanotechnology), which integrated the lessons for a nano-dialogue. Over the period spanning 2009-2011 it financed a large number of projects aimed at stimulating nano- dialogues.
The Rathenau Instituut played a role in this through, among other things, the institute’s special website Nano-dialogue. This website shared news on nano-applications, gave information on what nanotechnology is, and stimulated discussions on the risks, possibilities and desirability of the new developments. Moreover, over the period spanning 2009-2010 it published a digital nanotechnology newsletter. In 2009, a special edition of Flux on nanotechnology was published.
The Rathenau Instituut helped the committee and participants to a framework for the discussion on nanotechnology, manipulability, security, health and privacy, with the essay collection Leven als Bouwpakket (Life as a DIY Kit). This collection contains essays on new technological developments that expand possibilities for intervening with living tissue. Boundaries are fading, for example between intelligence and artificial intelligence and between life and artificial life.
Furthermore, the Rathenau Instituut informed the Senate and the House of Representatives on the developments and applications of nanotechnology. In April 2010, a visit was organized for members of parliament (in this case, representatives of nanotechnology) to the High Tech Campus Eindhoven, to provide topical information on nanomedicine.
In August 2010 the Rathenau Instituut organized a campaign for the readers of Quest: ten readers would get a tour of the new nanolab of MESA+.
In connection with the Social Dialogue Nanotechnology, in 2010 the Rathenau Instituut considered which subjects were picked up in social dialogue and which have not been touched, and what this means for politics and policy.
Risks of nanotechnology The second line in the institute’s activities concerns the risks of nanotechnology. Nanoparticles are used in an increasing number of products. This leads to questions on the health effects and environmental effects for people who are confronted with these particles at work (for example in factories) and for the users of products with artificially produced nanoparticles. Much is unclear concerning these risks and nanoparticle research lags behind nanoparticle use. The Rathenau Instituut emphasized in various publications and at workshops and other meetings that it is important to get a good overview of the use of nanoparticles. Only then will sufficient knowledge be gained on the negative effects of nanoparticles.
Relationships have been kept with the ION as well as with interdepartmental committees such as EJA (Ethisch/Juridische Aspecten van nanotechnology; Ethical/Legal Aspects of nanotechnology) 64 Self-Assessment
and IMPACT (Interdepartmentaal Multidisciplinair Panel ter Advisering over Convergerende Technologieën).
The Rathenau Instituut was invited by, among others, the Ministry of Justice and of Economic Affairs to give information on this new technological wave. In 2010, the interdepartmental workgroup Converging Technologies made a working visit to the Rathenau Instituut.
Ethical and societal aspects The development of nanotechnology is not an isolated phenomenon. In the third line of activities, the Rathenau Instituut researched the coming together of nanotechnology with developments in biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences. This convergence can be seen in, for example, the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), synthetic biology and robotics. These subjects have held an important place in the institute’s activity programme in the past period.
In a letter to the House of Representatives in March 2011, the Rathenau Instituut explicitly pleads for the broadening of nano-dialogue and policy in the field of nanotechnology to include NBIC (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences). As a result of this letter, intensive contact has taken place in 2011 with the ION on the possibilities and desirability of a cabinet standpoint on NBIC. Consequently, thanks to the Rathenau Instituut, three topics have been identified for this standpoint, namely the development of a knowledge infrastructure in the field of NBIC, the regulation of NBIC developments, and ethical consequences of NBIC.
Case 6 Databases and the Electronic Health Record
The activities surrounding databases and the Electronic Health Record are examples of how the Rathenau Instituut’s activities can get interwoven with parliament’s political agenda. In 2008, together with the Senate’s standing Committee of Justice, the Rathenau Instituut organized an expert meeting on data protection. The reason for this was that the House of Representatives wanted to get more insight into the use of high-tech criminal investigation methods in the Netherlands. One of the members of parliament was aware that the Rathenau Instituut wanted to apply the publication Van privacyparadijs tot controlestaat (2007) to politics. The results of the expert meeting were included in the Message to parliament ‘Opsporing behoeft checks and balances’ (investigation requires checks and balances; 2008).
Because of this earlier activity by the Rathenau Instituut, it was most obvious that the Senate approached the institute again when, in 2009, they began discussing the national electronic health record (EHR). A number of members of parliament also knew that the Rathenau Instituut was working on a continuation project on the use of large-scale databases.
The expert meeting had been organized in collaboration with the First Chamber Committee on Health, Welfare and Sports/Youth and Family (HWS/YF), in preparation for the Senate’s discussion on ‘the bill amending the Law on the use of citizen service numbers (BSN) in health care with respect to the electronic exchange of information in care’. The chamber committee wanted to explore the various aspects of the cabinet proposal and its consequences to the sector and citizens. Rathenau Instituut 65
Apart from holding a meeting with experts and stakeholders, the House of Representatives also wanted to research public opinion on the EHR. With the help of focus groups, the Rathenau Instituut researched public opinion, and the results were presented during the expert meeting. The institute also wrote an introductory memorandum presenting an overview of the content of the position papers that had been provided by experts and stakeholders. As a result of the expert meeting, the Rathenau Instituut wrote a memorandum with the most important meeting topics and with a few outstanding questions. Based on this, in 2010 a second expert meeting was organized, in which a number of topics were discussed specifically.
Activities Organizing an expert meeting verges a few months’ preparation. The Rathenau Instituut writes an introductory memorandum on the topic concerned and indicates what points are interesting to discuss. Experts and stakeholders are invited based on this. During the meeting they briefly present their standpoints, after which members of parliament can ask questions.
For the first expert meeting that the Rathenau Instituut organized together with the Senate’s Committee on HWS/YF, the institute wrote an introductory memorandum (‘Introductory Memorandum EHR’) in which an overview was given of the most important points that were made in the 30 position papers that were submitted by experts, occupational groups, and social groups. Partially as a result of the expert meeting, a Message to parliament appeared October 2008. Parallel to this, the Rathenau Instituut conducted qualitative research into citizens’ opinions on the EHR, and shared the results in the report: Het EPD: opvattingen van burgers (The EHR: Citizens’ Opinions; March 2010). The most important results were presented during the first expert meeting. Citizens appeared to worry about, among other things, unauthorized access to medical data. Another expert meeting followed the first expert meeting in March 2010. As mentioned above, the Rathenau Instituut wrote a short memorandum for the second expert meeting on the most important points that were made in the first expert meeting, and on the points that were not or not sufficiently discussed.
The national electronic health record also formed one of the cases in another publication by the Rathenau Instituut: Databases. Over ICT-beloftes, informatiehonger en digitale autonomie (Databases. On ICT promises, thirst for information and digital autonomy; 2010). Here a systematic comparison is made between the design and the use of large-scale databases, based on six cases. This publication was presented in November 2010 at a debate in ‘De Balie’ in Amsterdam, in which one member of parliament participated. The study received ample media and political attention. As a result of the publication, the Rathenau Instituut was invited for two round table meetings for the House of Representatives’ standing Committee for the Interior. One meeting – on 26 January 2011 – was about ICT in the government; the other – on 20 April – was about biometric passports. The publication also led to an invitation to the Rathenau Instituut for an expert meeting in the Senate on 66 Self-Assessment
21 February 2011 on the role of the government in digital data processing, and for a conference on 29 April 2011 on privacy by the political party GroenLinks.
Assessment and impact Fifteen senators and 25 experts and stakeholders took part in the first expert meeting on the EHR in the Senate, on 9 December 2009. The programme and speakers were announced on the Senate’s website. A report on the meeting was written, which is published as a parliament document (Chamber number 31466E). The second expert meeting in March 2010 can also be found back in parliament documents (Chamber number 31466F). During the consultation between the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports and the Senate on the EHR on 1 June 2010, both the senators and the minister frequently referred to the results of both expert meetings.
In the Rathenau Instituut’s 2009 annual report, Ms Tineke Slagter-Roukema, chairperson for the Senate’s Committee on HWS/YF, is cited: “The Rathenau Instituut’s researchers have done excellent work and were well-capable identifying the questions that had yet to be answered. The Rathenau Instituut is knowledgeable on the match between science and society, and the Senate on the match between society and politics. We therefore complement each other well.”
The 2010 annual report contains a citation by another politician, Ms Ing Yoe Tan, member of the Senate: “The Rathenau Instituut has hosted two expert meetings on the electronic health record for the Senate. These meetings have helped us to verify the information that we receive from other sources, such as the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.”
The media has given sufficient attention to the Rathenau Instituut’s activities and publications. For example, director Jan Staman was interviewed for ‘de Ontbijt Show’ (a breakfast show) on television on the topic of databases; an interview was aired on the radio; and articles appeared in newspapers and journals.
Case 7 Knowledge Chamber Human Enhancement
According to British ethicist Thomas Douglas, human enhancement is “the use of biomedical technology to achieve goals other than the treatment or prevention of disease”. With pills, brain stimulators, cosmetic operations or, for example, gene therapy, people can enhance themselves or others. This development is linked to important societal and ethical aspects.
Initially, with the project Human Enhancement, the Rathenau Instituut wanted to broaden the discussion on the possibilities and desirability of human enhancement. Until 2008, this was limited to a handful of scientists and a small circle of policymakers. On 24 February 2009 the Rathenau Instituut organized a workshop on human enhancement for STOA, the Technology Assessment Group of the European Parliament, at the European Parliament in Brussels.
In November 2009, at request of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, the Rathenau Instituut and these ministries drew up the programme for a Knowledge Chamber, which took place on 10 November 2009. The Knowledge Chamber was intended to inform members of the Rathenau Instituut 67
government, members of administrative bodies and other stakeholders on the possibilities of human enhancement technologies in the fields of justice and security. The ministries expressed a need to separate fact from fiction surrounding human enhancement and a need to downsize expectations to realistic proportions.
Especially interesting are the opportunities and drawbacks that follow from the developments of various technologies. How could this best serve collective ends? What is known, what is possible in these fields and what do we want, and what do we consider done and not done? Not done, for example, involves fundamental social values, such as human dignity, diversity, equality and social cohesion.
The following subjects have been chosen: psychopharmacology, neurotechnology (such as deep brain stimulation and neurofeedback), exoskeletons (robot suits for people) and ICT technology that stimulates desired behaviour (so-called persuasive technologies). The choice for these themes is logical considering the specific interests of officials at the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior. Moreover, not too long ago the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) discussed ‘nudging’, which included persuasive technologies.
Stakeholders Initially the Rathenau Instituut’s target group was wide and generic, to broaden the discussion on human enhancement. The Knowledge Chamber’s target group, however, was limited to the official top of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior. Various experts were invited to the Knowledge Chamber meeting. The information strategy was as follows: after informing the official top, the policy layers below would be informed through a conference for policy advisers. This conference took place in 2010.
The target group of the workshop Human Enhancement (by the European Parliament and held in 2009) included both members of the European Parliament as well as experts (scientists) and stakeholders (from business). At a later stage (2010) the public in general was subject to further research through focus groups.
Activities and products In 2008 a study on human enhancement was published. British and Dutch scientists were asked to provide essays. The essay collection, titled Reshaping the Human Condition: Exploring Human Enhancement, was presented on 8 July 2008 in collaboration with the British Embassy in The Hague. At the request of NWO, the Rathenau Instituut wrote the essay ‘Future Man – No Future Man’ which was published in 2009.
Members of the European Parliament, European experts and stakeholders in the field of human enhancement were invited to the workshop ‘The New You: Smarter, Stronger, Faster and Better? A European Approach to Human Enhancement’, which was organized in 2009 for the STOA (European Parliament). There were about 45 participants, including six members of the European Parliament.
68 Self-Assessment
Together with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, the Rathenau Instituut worked out the programme for the Knowledge Chamber Human Enhancement, which was held on 10 November 2009. For this Knowledge Chamber, in collaboration with the ministries a programme book was made and published. Employees of the Rathenau Instituut wrote its introduction, followed by short position papers by the invited experts.
This activity was followed-up with a conference on human enhancement, which the Rathenau Instituut organized in May 2010 for the policymakers of both previously mentioned ministries. During this conference, the opportunities and drawbacks of human enhancement were discussed for a just and secure country. The conference day started with a master class by Jan Staman of the Rathenau Instituut.
Parallel to this activity, the Rathenau Instituut researched the views of Dutch citizens on the desirability of enhancement technology and their arguments. In 2010, in five focus groups, citizens were asked what their views were on the consequences of enhancement technologies.
In September 2010, the Rathenau Instituut held a presentation on human enhancement for the Kamer van Morgen, a think-tank by Kennisnet, the Internet organization of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The institute also co-produced the essay collection Enhancing Human Capacities (Ter Meulen et al.), in which experts from Europe and the U.S. shared their views on the ethical and political implications of human enhancement.
Publications: Reshaping the Human Condition: Exploring Human Enhancement, 2008. Future Man – No Future Man, 2009. Report Human Enhancement, 2009. Published by STOA/European Parliament, to which M. Schuijff of the Rathenau Instituut made an important contribution. Programme book of the Knowledge Chamber Human Enhancement, 2009. Published by the Rathenau Instituut in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior. Mens van de toekomst, mens zonder toekomst, (2009), an adaptation of the abovementioned essay Future Man – No Future Man, by M. Smit, M. Schuijff, R. van Est and P. Klaassen.
Later publications on the subject are: Van Vergeetpil tot Robotpak. Human enhancement voor een veilige en rechtvaardige samenleving? Eds. Jacqueline B. de Jong, Ira van Keulen, Jeanette Quast. July 2011. This study is a collaborative publication by the two ministries (the Interior and Kingdom Relations, and Security and Justice) and the Rathenau Instituut. In the concluding chapter, the Rathenau Instituut provides a few checks and balances for the employment of human enhancement technologies for collective ends. According to the Rathenau Instituut, human enhancement technologies may only be employed if they comply with the requirements of voluntariness, minimal invasion, security and transparency. The government must also be open to debate with the intended target group, and liability must be clearly determined.
Rathenau Instituut 69
Enhancing Human Capacities. Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen, Guy Kahane (Eds.). Wiley- Blackwell, 2011. A collection of essays in which experts from Europe and the U.S. share their views on the ethical and political implications of human enhancement.
Assessment and impact As a result of the workshop on human enhancement in the European Parliament, it has become clear that there is a need for a committee at the European level in which politicians, together with experts and citizens, follow the developments surrounding human enhancement and set a political agenda. Meanwhile, the Rathenau Instituut is doing a continuation study for the European Parliament, titled Making Perfect Life.
After the first Knowledge Chamber meeting with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, a conference was organized in 2010 for policy advisers in collaboration with the Rathenau Instituut, and this goes to show that the Rathenau Instituut’s earlier contribution was much valued.
In 2011, the Raad voor Strafrechttoepassing en Jeugdbescherming (Council for Criminal Law Enforcement and Child Protection) began preparing a preliminary report on human enhancement. Furthermore, international collaboration with publishers took place on possible opportunities and drawbacks of human enhancement and its ethical and societal aspects. Next, a suggestion was made that the Rathenau Instituut could participate in the activities of the National Initiative Brain & Cognition (NIHC), but this idea did not substantiate. In the U.S. the National Research Council and the Department of Defense have shown great interest in Dutch contributions in this field, as they give Americans a good look at the state of the art in Europe.
The newspaper Trouw published a series of articles on human enhancement on 17 and 24 January 2009 by M. Smits, M. Schuijff and F. Brom. Furthermore, articles have appeared in the Reformatorisch dagblad (4 April), De Groene Amsterdammer (9 January) and the Tijdschrift voor Sociale Vraagstukken TSS, no.1-2. Ten interviews have been broadcast on radio and television over the period between 24 June and 3 July.
Case 8 30 Years of Research Funding
The reason for this study was the lack of clarity surrounding the data regarding research funding in the Netherlands. This lack of clarity applied to both the scope of the various forms of funding over the period spanning 1975-2005 as well as the effects of various instruments distributing these funds. A second reason was that a PRIME project was running in the EU framework programme that was focused on project funding within publically funded research. The Rathenau Instituut was one of the participants in this study. This first investigation was performed by the Rathenau Instituut in collaboration with the University of Twente.
Stakeholders Debates on science policy are often governed by arguments about the division of funds and were made complicated by a lack of insight into the flow of funds. The study offered insights to the parties in the field, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the VSNU, scientific institutes and 70 Self-Assessment
umbrella organizations such as KNAW, NWO and the AWT. The study also makes a breakdown by flow of funds types, which helps to give structure to the debate.
Activities and products In 2006 and 2007 the Rathenau Instituut researched the presence and availability of data on project funding in the period spanning 1975-2005. Funding by the government, NWO, European funds and collection box funds were investigated. The study’s hypothesis was that project funding increasingly suffers from core funding; a frequently heard statement, but little substantiated.
This study showed that from 1970, the scope of project funding increased greatly until 1990. Research was funded more and more purposefully and the funding of industrial research, too, increased. The government wanted to focus more on research projects and themes that are societally relevant. To this end, since the late 1970s, the Ministry of Economic Affairs directly employed its budget to stimulate the innovation of knowledge and technology.
From: Versleijen et al. 2007, 30 jaar Onderzoeksfinanciering
In the 1990s, the share of project funding within total government funding stabilized, but the way in which the budget was divided did change. This resulted in, among other things, new funding instruments, for example for talented researchers and technological top institutes. Because of these arrangements, researchers with various research aims can appeal to various funds and support.
However, this has resulted in a web of various types of funding. Despite the many control mechanisms, many people have lost track of the overview. The relationship between government and research has become utterly complex. Research institutes and universities now have the idea Rathenau Instituut 71
that temporary funds are becoming an increasingly large part of public funding and that core funding cannot keep up with this.
Figures on research funding have been included in the portal denederlandsewetenschap.nl ever since 2010, where facts and figures on the Dutch science system are freely available to anyone interested. This portal is an initiative of the Rathenau Instituut and KNAW. The portal does not only answer questions such as who are the most important financiers, but also who is responsible and involved in the field of policy and advice on scientific research, and what research programmes exist in the Netherlands. The website shows which organizations in the Netherlands do research, and which organizations support this research. The portal could provide even more information on the Dutch science system in the coming years, but more data is needed for this. An English version of the portal is in the making.
Assessment and impact The publication Dertig jaar publieke onderzoeksfinanciering in Nederland 1975-2005 (30 Years of Research Funding in the Netherlands 1975-2005) led to different reactions. At the start, a number of stakeholders were irritated and surprised to find that the first flow of funds did not subside. The AWT organized an afternoon meeting with participants from the VSNU, AWT and the Rathenau Instituut on the question of how the Rathenau Instituut had come to its conclusions. There was little discussion on the core figures, but rather on the calculation of the relation between institutional and project funding.
Over the course of time the report was more frequently quoted with approval, especially because of the observation that the organization of the science system was becoming too complex. In September 2007, the minister of Education, Culture and Science sent the report to parliament, together with the report on the careers of researchers and a letter. A short while later a Strategic Agenda for higher education, research and science policy appeared. In this agenda, while referring to the report, the minister remarks that “the multitude of funding instruments and corresponding policy aims raise the question whether there isn’t too much authority and if our country did not get out of hand with regard to the forming of institutes”. Other organizations, too, such as the AWT, referred to the report in this way. In its current project ‘Coordination of Science’, the Rathenau Instituut continues research on the complexity and function of the (coordinating) intermediary organizations in the system.
A second track is the OECD expert group ‘science and technology indicators’. There is a clear interest in reaching a similar system of indicators with various other countries, which means, among other things, that matters of definition must be internationally sorted. The Rathenau Instituut is project leader. A first inventory check took place in 2009. The Rathenau Instituut is working on a handbook for a second round of data gathering. Soon an OECD Working Paper will appear in which the results of the first round of data gathering are published.
72 Self-Assessment
Case 9 Management of Research Groups
This project is one of the first divisions of the activity programme of SciSA. The subject focuses on the smallest unit in the science system where research takes place, namely, the research group. The research line ‘management of research groups’ is about the organization, the management and leadership of research groups, and the effects on the scientific and societal achievements of research groups. With this, research leaders, managers of research institutes and policy advisers can inform and advise researchers, research financiers and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science on how ideal conditions can be created for the optimal performance of research groups. The research line is a continuation of Inge van der Weijden’s thesis In Search of Performance. Research Management within the Dutch Public Medical and Health Sector. The project’s main question was: which organizational factors contribute to scientific achievement? Substantive knowledge alone is no guarantee for good research results.
Stakeholders Leaders of research groups, research programmes and scientific institutes can benefit from the results of this project. Research financiers also have an interest in knowledge on the effect of research management on scientific and societal achievements. Businesses and social organizations are also stakeholders if they have a scientific department, or if they collaborate with scientific institutes.
Activities and products Two surveys were held by biomedical research groups, in 2002 and in 2007. The results of the third survey from 2011 are currently being analysed and they will soon be shared in a report. Surveys were distributed among all group leaders in Dutch health care research. The relationships between organization, management, leadership and the academic achievements of research groups were studied. The researchers had also wondered about the differences between high performance groups and ‘normal’ research groups. Furthermore, the recent attention for the societal impact of research was examined: what is the societal orientation of a group leader and what are his or her societal achievements, and how do they relate to his or her scientific achievements? The results of the survey were analysed and conclusions were drawn about, among other things, the optimal size of research groups and specific characteristics of leaders of high performance groups. The results were published in Management en prestaties van onderzoeksgroepen (Management and Achievements of Research Groups; 2009), of which a summary was published independently.
Various presentations on the most important findings of the report were given at University Medical Centres (UMCs) and ZonMw. Four seminars were also organized in order to inform scientists and policymakers of the results and to discuss the findings with them. Furthermore, articles appeared in TSG and HO Management and a contribution was made to various international conferences, such as EASST, ESA and EGOS, and various scientific articles were written, of which most are compiled in Maaike Verbree’s thesis Dynamics of Academic Leadership in Research Groups (which appeared in 2011). The articles are also published as book chapters and as articles in international scientific journals.
Rathenau Instituut 73
Assessment and impact The most prominent findings of the research, namely, that the ideal size of a research group is between fifteen and twenty people and that there are preferably two research leaders who are closely involved with the research, have been widely communicated in scientific journals and through presentations at, for example, the four university medical centres. An interest in the report does not only come from within the Netherlands; also from abroad. The report’s findings are published in international scientific journals.
Prof. Dr. E.C. Klasen, dean and member of the management board of the LUMC, states in the 2008 annual report that he agrees with the findings and that the Rathenau report offers valuable knowledge. “We must take a good look at what this advice can mean for our work.”
Linda Everse of the Erasmus Medical Centre shares in the 2009 annual report that she took a look at her own research department after a presentation by Rathenau Instituut employees. Two smaller research groups were combined and a larger research group was split up. Incidentally, not only for reasons mentioned in the research.
The report on research groups is being used by policy advisers. It was used as course material for research leaders in a course on academic leadership.
Various peer-reviewed publications by Maaike Verbree and Inge van der Weijden (et al.) appeared in Research Policy, Science and Public Policy and Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen (Journal for Medical Science). Furthermore, contributions were made to the publication Creativity and Leadership in Science, Technology and Innovation (ed. S. Hemlin, C.M. Allwood, B. Martin & M. Mumford; forthcoming, 2012). Furthermore, an article was published in HO Management (2010) and, as mentioned above, contributions were made to various workshops and seminars, and presentations were given at international conferences.
74 Self-Assessment
Annex 4 Organization
In this annex we discuss the Rathenau Instituut’s organization and the developments in workforce and finances.
Internal organization
The Rathenau Instituut has four departments. The institute’s core tasks are performed by the departments of Technology Assessment, Science System Assessment and Communications. The department of Management and Support performs tasks in the fields of the secretariat, finances, human resource management, quarters and automation.
A director leads the institute. Together with the four heads of department, he forms the Management Team. The director is accountable to the KNAW and to the management of the institute. He is qualitate qua secretary in the management.
Bestuur KNAW Rathenau Instituut
Directeur
Bedrijfsvoering en Communicatie ondersteuning
Science System Assessment
Technology Assessment
Scope
The scope of the Rathenau Instituut’s workforce has increased over the period spanning 2006-2011 from 27.8 FTE to 48.6 FTE.
The increase of the number of FTEs over this period is for a large part connected to the Rathenau Instituut’s increased number of tasks and with the Science System Assessment task. Furthermore, the other departments have grown, as well. The department of Technology Assessment was Rathenau Instituut 75
reinforced to create more research capacity. The department of Communications was reinforced to carry out the new communication strategy.
Since 2006, the Bedrijfsbureau (Planning Office) for the KNAW institutes Huygens ING, DANS and the Rathenau Instituut can be found under the Rathenau Instituut. This office, which is part of the department of Management, fulfils institutional tasks in the field of HRM and finances, and employs a corresponding number of FTEs.
Table: Work force 2006-2011 Year Workforce Total FTE Permanent / Female / male temporary (%) (%) 2006 32 27.8 32 / 68 60 / 40 2007 41 35.9 40 / 60 63 / 37 2008 47 39.6 45 / 55 62 / 38 2009 51 44.68 38 / 62 64 / 36 2010 54 47.61 34 / 66 61 / 39 2011 55 48.61 38 / 62 62 / 38 *as of 31 December The Rathenau Instituut receives most direct funds from within the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In the past years, this direct funding has become less, due to a (generic) budget cut of 6 per cent. In 2011 another generic budget cut was imposed that will increase to 5.3 per cent from 2012 to 2018.
In spite of these budget cuts, the institute’s benefits realized have increased slightly over the past period, from €4.6 million to €5.3 million. The contribution of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science now amounts to 90 per cent of the total budget. Other income sources are (government) institutions, research projects for third parties, secondments and letting. The Rathenau Instituut’s financial figures must be established by the board. Next, they are recorded in the yearly budgets and the KNAW’s annual financial reports.
Table: budget 2006-2011 Year Assets (k€) Liabilities (k€) Direct funding (%) 2006 4,589 3,918 88.8 2007 5,087 3,975 88.6 2008 5,542 4,814 87.7 2009 5,407 5,634 90.4 2010 5,344 5,266 88.1 2011 5,221 5,751 90.0
Governance
The Rathenau Instituut is not a separate legal entity, but it does have a unique status, as explained in the Governmental Decree. It does not fall under advisory councils, planning offices or regular institutes for policy research. In order to arrange a good relation between the board and officials, it 76 Self-Assessment
was decided on a construction of a board and an institute with a director who prepares and executes the decisions of the board and provides leadership to the institute. The institute is placed under the management of the KNAW. Furthermore, the ministry also has a role in the governance.2
The board is responsible for the strategic and substantive aspects of the work performed by the Rathenau Instituut and for the mission and strategy of the organization. The board is particularly responsible for providing the activity programme and the yearly report on the activities performed, as well as for providing the yearly estimate and the financial report. The minister appoints the chairman and other members of the board at the request of the board of the institute, on the advice of the general board of the KNAW and the WRR.
Members of the board are appointed based on their substantive knowledge, which must complement the institute’s mission, and based on their social position. In 2010 a newly appointed chairman, drs. S. Dekker, succeeded drs. W. van Velzen. The composition of the current board can be found in Annex 6.
In 2009, the Rathenau Instituut’s managerial relation with the KNAW was explicated in the institute’s Governmental Decree, in order to guarantee the institute’s independence. It is important that the decree states that the KNAW guarantees that the institute can function independently with regard to content and that government contribution is at the institute’s immediate disposal.
At least once a year, a meeting takes place with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science on the Rathenau Instituut’s activity programme and the funding that the ministry puts at its disposal. The minister of Education, Culture and Science sends the Rathenau Instituut’s activity programme and other documents to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A committee appointed by the minister performs the assessment of the institute.
A more detailed account of the authorizations and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the KNAW, the board and the director can be found in the Governmental Decree in Annex 2. (In Dutch)
Since 2010 the Rathenau Instituut has had a programme committee that thinks along about developments in society that are relevant to the institute’s activity programme, and that can support the board and the management content-wise by signalling trends and scheduling topics. The composition of the programme committee can be found in Annex 4.
2 Reference to Governmental Decree Rathenau Instituut 77
Annex 5 Employees
Drs. Jan Staman, LL.M. Director Veterinary medicine, Dutch Law Technology Assessment Prof. Dr. Frans Brom Head of department TA Ethics, Philosophy of Law Dr. ir. Rinie van Est Department coordinator TA Technological Physics, Politics Dr. ir. Geert Munnichs Department coordinator TA Environmental Hygiene, Philosophy and History Dr. Lotte Asveld Senior researcher Philosophy, Cultural and Scientific Studies Dr. Stans van Egmond Senior researcher Politics and Gender Studies Dr. Jurgen Ganzevles Senior researcher Science and Technology Studies, Electrotechnology Dr. Ingrid Geesink Senior researcher Science and Technology Dynamics, Sociology Drs. Christian van ’t Hof Senior researcher Cultural Sociology, Electrotechnology Drs. Ira van Keulen Senior researcher Sociology Dr. Dirk Stemerdink Senior researcher Science and Technology Studies, Biology Conor Douglas, PhD, MSc, BA Postgraduate researcher Science and Technology Studies, Sociology Drs. Floortje Daemen Researcher Arts and Sciences
Drs. Virgil Rerimassie, LL.M. Researcher Science and Technology Studies, Dutch Law Drs. ir. Monique Riphagen Researcher Environmental Hygiene, Philosophy Drs. Mirjam Schuijff Researcher Public Administration, Philosophy Drs. Chantal Steegers Researcher Arts and Sciences Jelte Timmer, MA Researcher New media and Digital Culture Science System Assessment Dr. Barend van der Meulen Head of department Science Chemistry, Scientific Studies System Assessment Dr. Edwin Horlings coordinator Economics, Social History Dr. Petra van Alphen Senior researcher Phonetics, Psycholinguistics Dr. Wouter Boon Senior researcher Natural Sciences, Innovation Management Ir. Catherine Chiong Meza, MSc, Senior researcher Engineering & Policy Analysis, Process BA Technology Drs. Leonie van Drooge Senior researcher Science Dynamics, Chemistry Drs. Marije de Goede Senior researcher Psychology Dr. Laurens Hessels Senior researcher Innovation Studies, Environmental Chemistry, Philosophy of Science 78 Self-Assessment
Drs. Jan van Steen Senior researcher Psychology Drs. Pleun van Arensbergen Researcher Cultural Anthropology, Cultural and Personality Psychology Rosalie Belder, MPhil Researcher Political Sciences, History Drs. Thomas Gurney Researcher Science and Technology Studies, Chemistry Pieter Heringa, MSc Researcher Development economics Stefan de Jong, MSc Researcher Science and Innovation Management, Biology Keelie Murdock, MSc Researcher Science and Technology Studies, Business Administration Tjerk Wardenaar, MA MSc Researcher Philosophy, Industrial Ecology, Politics Bei Wen, MSc Researcher Economics Dr. Jiansheng Xing Software developer Computer Science
Corporate Communications
Drs. Antoinette Thijssen Head of department PR Philosophy, Journalism Drs. Marlies Hanifer Communications advisor Arts and Sciences, International Conflict Studies Drs. Janneke Visser Communications advisor Social and Political Philosophy, HBO Publishing and Book Distribution Claartje Doorenbos Information specialist HBO Library and Documentation Drs. Clara Kemper Communications advisor History of Art Drs. Heleen van Kooij Content manager Art and Culture Drs. Pascal Messer Editor International Relations, Journalism Management and Support Els Versteegt Head Management and Support Facility Management Irma de Bont, BA Executive secretary European Studies, HBO June Pechler Secretary MBO Secretary Sjerhiel Noslin Secretary MBO Schoevers Secretary MBO Legal Secretary Nanda Verasdonck Secretary Royal Academy of Visual Arts Hetty Labots Personnel consultant Personnel Management en Organization, Modern Business Administration (MBA) Drs. Christian Klein HRM staff Sociology Aziza Bouhayoufi Administrative staff HRM Social and Legal Administration Drs. Barbara Buis Controller Business Economics Lies Haket Administrator Financial, Economic and Administrative MBO+, Payroll MBO+ Dhandew Bhageloe Project administrator MEAO Business Economics Agaath Roodenburg Project administrator Modern Business Administration, Remedial Education Rathenau Instituut 79
Annex 6 Members of the Board
Composition of the current board of the Rathenau Instituut as of 1 March 2012:
Drs. Sander Dekker (chairman) The Hague’s alderman for Finance and City Management as well as for the Segbroek district.
Prof. Dr. Emile Aarts Vice president of Philips Research, part-time professor at the Eindhoven University of Technology.
Prof. Dr. ir. Wiebe Bijker Professor of Technology and Society at Maastricht University.
Prof. Dr. Christien Dijkstra Professor of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam.
Drs. E.J.F.B. van Huis Director NCB Naturalis Leiden. Member of Supervisory Board Paradiso Amsterdam, member of Maatschappelijke Adviesraad (Social Advisory Board) Faculty of Humanities Utrecht University, member of Raad van Advies (Advisory Board) Nationale Stichting De Nieuwe Kerk Amsterdam, member of Supervisory Board Sieboldhuis Leiden.
Prof. Dr. ir. Harry Lintsen Professor of History of Technology at Eindhoven University of Technology, chairman of the N.W. Posthumus Instituut, chairman of the Research School Accreditation Committee (ECOS).
Prof. Dr. Henriette Maassen van den Brink Professor of Economics at the University of Amsterdam and Maastricht University, member of Supervisory Board LUMC in Leiden, member and deputy chairperson of Supervisory Board RVU, Hilversum.
Prof. Corien Prins, LL.M. Professor of Law and Computerization at Tilburg University, member of the WRR.
Prof. Dr. Arre Zuurmond Founder and partner of Zenc, research and advisory bureau for government, innovation and ICT, The Hague.
Drs. Jan Staman, LL.M. (secretary) Director of the Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.
80 Self-Assessment
Former members of the board in the period spanning 2006-2011:
Drs. Wim van Velzen (chairman until 1 January 2011) Senior Advisor, Covington and Burling, Brussels; chairman ‘Commissie van Wijzen Kennis en Innovatie’; member of the Supervisory Board University of Twente; commissioner at Eindhoven Airport; chairman of the ‘Commissie Grootschalige Onderzoeksfaciliteiten’.
Prof. Dr. Inez de Beaufort (until 1 April 2006) Professor of Medical Ethics, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam.
Dr. Adriana Esmeijer (until 15 October 2011) Director St. Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds, Amsterdam.
Dr. Peter Kwant, LL.M. (until 1 January 2010) Group Research Advisor, Shell International BV, The Hague (until the end of March 2008, then retirement).
Prof. Dr. Pauline Meurs (until 1 July 2009) Professor of Health Care Management at the Institute of Health and Policy Management at Erasmus University Rotterdam; member of the Senate; chairperson for ZonMw.
Dr. Benita Plesch (until 1 May 2007) Alons & Partners Consultancy BV, The Hague, director.
Prof. Dr. Harrie Verbon (until 28 April 2010) Professor of Public Finances, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, Tilburg University; member of the Auditor’s Office for the city of Tilburg; member of the board for the Wim Drees Foundation.
Rathenau Instituut 81
Annex 7 Programme Committee
Composition of the current programme committee of the Rathenau Instituut as of 1 March 2012:
Drs. Sander Dekker is The Hague’s alderman for Finance and City Management as well as for the Segbroek district.
Dr. Ellen de Brabander is Chief Scientific Officer at the pharmaceutical company Merial. She leads nine research and development departments, spread across the globe. She is a member of the Breimer Committee (sectoral plan physics & chemistry).
Prof. Marc Chavannes, LL.M. is a political columnist for the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Since 1 January 2006 he has been professor of Journalism at the University of Groningen.
Drs. Wim Deetman is member of the Council of State since 1 January 2008. At this moment he leads the committee, which is doing an independent research project on sexual abuse within Roman Catholic institutions. He was Minister of Education and Science in the Cabinets Lubbers, chairman for the House of Representatives and mayor of The Hague.
Prof. Dr. Wim van de Donk succeeded Hanja Maij-Weggen as Queen’s Commissioner of North Brabant on 1 October 2009. From 2004 to 2009 he was chairman for the Scientific Council for Government Policy.
Ir. Marijke Vos is a prominent politician for GroenLinks. She is a member of the Taskforce Biodiversity and Natural Resources and a member of the Senate for GroenLinks (as of 7 June 2011). She is chairperson for the sector organization the MOgroep Welzijn en Maatschappelijke Dienstverlening, and chairperson for the Federatie Landbouw en Zorg (FLZ). Among other things, Marijke Vos was party chairperson for GroenLinks, chairperson for the parliamentary investigative committee building industry (building fraud) and alderman in Amsterdam.
Drs. Jan Staman, LL.M. (secretary) has worked for the Rathenau Instituut since 2002. As director he concerns himself with the general leadership of the institute. Jan Staman was scientific staff member at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in Utrecht. Afterwards he held various functions at the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. 82 Self-Assessment
Who was Rathenau?
The Rathenau Instituut is named after Professor G.W. Rathenau (1911-1989), who was successively professor of experimental physics at the University of Amsterdam, director of the Philips Physics Laboratory in Eindhoven, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Council on Government Policy. He achieved national fame as chairman of the commission formed in 1978 to investigate the societal implications of micro-electronics. One of the commission's recommendations was that there should be ongoing and systematic monitoring of the societal significance of all technological advances. Rathenau's activities led to the foundation of the Netherlands Organization for Technology Assessment (NOTA) in 1986. On 2 June 1994, this organization was renamed 'the Rathenau Instituut'.