| Parallel Sessions Part I - 11:15 - 12:15 |
|
Accelerating and facilitating the use of AI in Science
AI is changing science: it is a catalyst for scientific breakthroughs, accelerating research and enabling results beyond what is currently possible. It changes scientific practices and requires framework conditions to develop AI applications for science and make them usable. This affects all disciplines of science, albeit in different forms. Currently, the impact is immense, especially for engineering and life sciences. AI offers great opportunities for research and innovation, which is particularly important for the competitiveness of European RTI ecosystems. At the same time, it is important to reduce European dependencies and consider not only the potential but also the risks, especially with regard to the responsible, ethical, sustainable, and inclusive use of AI in science in the spirit of digital humanism.
The workshop marks the start of a national roadmap process for AI in science. Its goal is to give an overview of current discussions and ideas at the European level and to enable an open exchange on key topics, opportunities and challenges related to AI in science.
|
|
Towards an integrated structure for the research ethics landscape in Austria
As part of priority area 5 of the National Action Plan – Toward Value-Based Research Politics – the initiative Integrity and Ethics in Research proposes five measures – from collaboration with European partners and establishing comprehensive training opportunities to a cross-sectoral dialogue on integrity between research institutions in Austria.
This workshop will highlight one of the planned measures – a dialogue towards establishing a coordination network or infrastructure for the research ethics landscape in Austria. While the traditionally more developed research ethics infrastructures (e.g., in medicine) and more recent arrivals (e.g., in social sciences or engineering) face new challenges, the historically grown research ethics landscape remains fragmented. The planned dialogue is meant to explore the current state of the research ethics infrastructure across disciplines and institutions, identify gaps, and draft a design to sustainably coordinate prevention, training, and investigation activities for research ethics on the national level.
|
|
Reforming Research Assessment: The perspective of competitiveness
A reform of research assessment has been under discussion at European level for some time and has already been included as Action 3 in the first European Research Area (ERA) Policy Agenda (2022–2024). This demand by the European Commission arose from the fact that the current system relies heavily on publications in journals with a high Journal Impact Factor and on the total number of publications as the most important indicators of quality, performance and impact of research. However, this approach fails to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality, performance and impact of research.
The reform of research assessment, which also includes rewarding open science practices in terms of open collaboration and early knowledge and data sharing, should enhance greater quality, efficiency and trust in research. Additionally, it seeks to establish an assessment framework that is flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of countries, disciplines, research cultures, research maturity, institutional tasks and career paths, as outlined in the agenda.
In Austria, discussions on the reform of research assessment, closely linked to research careers, have primarily focused on Third Mission activities, the introduction of new academic job profiles and the extension of traditional ones to permanent positions, and potential incentives for adopting open science practices. Towards the end of the first ERA Policy Agenda, Mario Draghi published his report on the future of EU competitiveness.
Therefore, in our panel, we want to discuss the reform of research assessment from the perspective of competitiveness, which has received little attention in Austria to date. On the one hand, every evaluation system inherently involves aspects of competitiveness, and on the other hand, it is clearly reflected in the upcoming ERA Policy Agenda.
|
| Parallel Sesssions Part II - 12:30 - 13:30 |
|
From Policy to Practice: Advancing Equity in open Science
The panel discussion "From Policy to Practice: Advancing Equity in Open Science" examines various dimensions of equity within the Open Science movement in Austria, in line with the relevant ERA action. Key stakeholders from academia, policy, and funding agencies will discuss barriers and challenges to inclusive participation, including issues related to open access publishing and data management infrastructure.
They will analyze national experiences and political frameworks concerning access, coverage, and the design of infrastructures for open science, as well as policies on scientific publication and research capacities. The discussion will also highlight the role of funding agencies and institutional policies in promoting an inclusive research environment in Austria.
The event aims to provide actionable insights and recommendations for advancing equity in open science, ultimately fostering a more collaborative and innovative research ecosystem in the country. By encouraging inclusive dialogue, this panel seeks to inspire a collective commitment to equity in open science. Participants will gain valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities for advancing Open Science in Austria. An interactive tool will enable them to share their perspectives and experiences, allowing for active contributions to the discussion.
|
|
Strengthening Trust in Science: Ways to enhance public participation
In times of supposedly growing social polarization and increasing skepticism toward scientific findings, the question of trust in science is becoming increasingly urgent. This workshop addresses the question of how science communication and public participation can be designed to promote trust, enable dialogue, and strengthen social participation.
The workshop brings together stakeholders to develop strategies based on the ERA NAP that increase the transparency, relevance, and accessibility of scientific processes. The focus is on formats and participatory methods that bring citizens closer to research processes and actively involve them in these processes—from science communication and dialogue to citizen science.
The aim is to bring institutions and stakeholders together to discuss how science can be strengthened as a trustworthy resource in a democratic society. The workshop provides space for reflection, networking, and the development of innovative participation formats that bring science and society closer together.
|
|
Value-based international STI cooperation
Research, development and innovation thrive on global cooperation and the open exchange of ideas, approaches, and data. Such openness requires a certain level of trust and a shared commitment to common principles and values.
Through a multilateral dialogue with partner countries worldwide, the EU has defined a set of overarching principles and values considered especially important in this context. The “Brussels Statement”, endorsed by more than 60 countries and organizations in February 2024, lays out core areas such as academic freedom; ethics and research integrity; gender equality and inclusiveness; open science; research excellence; knowledge valorization; research security; and equitable R&I partnerships with low- and middle-income countries.
In Austria’s national ERA Action Plan 2026-2028, a dedicated measure addresses how these principles and values can be strengthened in the context of international RTI cooperation. The workshop aims to explore practical ways to establish value-based partnerships, focusing on how these principles and values can be considered and implemented in international collaborations.
We will discuss questions such as:
• What role do these principles and values play in the practical cooperation between individual researchers, research organizations, and companies?
• How are they put into practice and protected?
• Positive or negative examples in this regard that could be discussed?
• What more can be done to further embed these commitments in international cooperation?
|