ALLEA awards its 2020 Madame de Staël Prize to cultural historian Joep Leerssen

The Jury of ALLEA’s Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values paid tribute to Dutch cultural historian Joep Leerssen (University of Amsterdam), whose work has been quintessential in studying the emergence and the development of European national movements and stereotypes.

The award worth €10,000 is awarded by ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, jointly with the foundation Compagnia di San Paolo as major supporter. The Prize recognises eminent scholars and intellectuals whose work represents a significant contribution to the cultural values of Europe and to the idea of European integration.

A comparatist by formation, Leerssen has devoted his career to analysing how Europe’s multinationality has been experienced in history, tracing Europe’s identity as an evolving multi-party discourse of perceptions and representations.

“European cultural history is an endlessly seductive labyrinth of mirrors, full of guilt, glory, and self-reflections”, he commented. “Poised between cosmopolitanism and nationalism, being European is a standing challenge to our creative intelligence as scholars and as citizens.”

Summarising the deliberations of the Madame de Staël Prize Jury, ALLEA President and Chairman of the Jury, Antonio Loprieno stated:

“Joep Leerssen is one of the world’s most remarkable figures in the critical analysis of ethnic and cultural stereotyping and in the comparative history of European nationalisms. In times when various forms of national rhetoric seem to play a prominent role in public discourse, we need the orientation provided by comparative cultural research in order to navigate the challenges faced by modern European societies. We are delighted to award the 2020 Madame de Staël Prize to one such renowned scholar and pay tribute to Professor Leersen’s remarkable scientific opus.”

Joep Leerssen is a cultural historian with training in Comparative Literature. He is currently Professor of European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, additionally holding a part-time research professorship at the University of Maastricht. In course of his professional career, he has held visiting appointments at Harvard, Cambridge, Göttingen, and the ENS (Paris), among others. He is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

With the funding attached to two major academic awards (the Spinoza Prize and a Royal Netherlands Academy Professorship), Leerssen set up the Study Platform on Interlocking Nationalisms in 2009-2010. Its flagship publication to date is the Encyclopedia of Romantic Nationalism in Europe (2015-18). Among his other books are Remembrance and Imagination (1996), De Bronnen van het Vaderland (2nd ed. 2011), Spiegelpaleis Europa (3rd ed. 2015), National Thought in Europe (3rd ed. 2018), Imagology and The Rhine: National Tensions, Romantic Visions (2007 and 2017, both co-edited with Manfred Beller), and Commemorating Writers in 19th-Century Europe (2014, co-edited with Ann Rigney).

Now in its seventh edition, the All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize honours outstanding scholarly and intellectual contributions to the advancement of Europe. Previous laureates include Mariana Mazzucato, Andrea Pető, Koen Lenaerts and others.

About Compagnia di San Paolo 

Since 1563, we have been working out of Turin for the common good, with a focus on people. Our experience has taught us that the well-being of individuals is closely linked to that of their community. This is why, for us, the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations are a valuable opportunity to contribute to the future of humankind at all levels: we have taken on this challenge and reorganised ourselves accordingly.

We have three main Goals: Culture, People and Planet, which can be achieved through fourteen Missions. We are committed to preserving and expanding our endowment in order to make contributions and develop projects working alongside institutions and in collaboration with our auxiliary bodies. This is our commitment, for the common good and for everyone’s future.

Read more

How can we make Europe’s food system sustainable?

Food insecurity and sustainability are among the most significant global challenges facing humanity today. They are linked to a range of other challenges including malnutrition, biodiversity loss, climate change, soil degradation, and water quality.  

The new SAPEA report on Sustainable food system for European Union” addresses these questions and considers how a socially just and sustainable food system for the EU can be best defined and attained.  

The report was coordinated by ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, and was written by a multidisciplinary group of 15 leading scientists nominated by academies across Europe. This report was requested by the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission and it informs their Scientific Opinion, which contains a set of recommendations for the European Commission. The two documents were published recently. 

We are talking with Peter Jackson, the chair of the SAPEA expert group who wrote the report. Peter Jackson is a Professor of Human Geography at the University of Sheffield in the UK and co-Director of the Institute for Sustainable Food. 

 

Transcript of the interview 

Good morning. Today we will discuss food sustainability and a new SAPEA report on that topic. We are talking with Peter Jackson, the Chair of the SAPEA expert group who wrote the report. Peter is a Professor of Human Geography at the University of Sheffield in the UK and the co-Director of the Institute for Sustainable Food. Peter, thank you for being here with us!  And the first question I wanted to ask you is that the report says that a shift to a sustainable food system in Europe is necessary. Could you tell us why?  

Yes, thank you. The current food system is widely acknowledged to be unsustainable, and that’s because of a number of reasons.  The food system is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for more than a third of total global greenhouse gas emissions.  It’s also a major contributor to soil depletion, to soil quality impoverishment, and a rage of other ecological consequences, including the loss of biodiversity.  

For all these reasons we think the food system is unsustainable. It’s also unsustainable in terms of food waste: as much of a third of the food we produce is lost to human consumption at various points along the supply chain. And lastly, in terms of food security, there’s been an alarming increase in the number of people needing access to emergency forms of food aid, such as food banks.  So across all those criteria, it’s fair to say that the current food system is unsustainable.  

And how can we make this shift towards sustainability happen? What does evidence say about it?   

Conventional approach to solving food system challenges is framed in terms of sustainable intensification.  And that means using agritech and other scientific interventions to grow more food using less land and fewer inputs.  Others disagree with that approach, and suggest we need to focus on agroecology, or organic farming, or to support a return to more local and seasonal food supplies.  We clearly also need a concerted approach to reduction of food loss and food waste, but others would also say we need to explore alternative forms of protein, or a move to more plant-based diets.  

So there are a whole range of solutions being advocated, and our report tries to weigh up the scientific evidence for one or more of those approaches.  Generally though, we support a system-wide and radical change to the current food system, exploring all those options.  

The SAPEA report that you worked on sets down key messages for policy-makers, which are then used by the Scientific Advisors to develop recommendations for the European Commission. But this time, we wanted to ask about your personal opinion as an expert: what would be the most important step towards a sustainable food system in Europe?   

It’s actually hard to separate more a personal opinion from the conclusions we came to in the report as a whole. But our main approach has been to suggest that no single actor, or single action, holds the key to transitioning to a more just and sustainable food system.  

We argue in the report that we need to combine so-called hard and soft measures. So the hard measures would include taxation and legislation, and the softer measures would include consumer education, health campaigns and behaviour change approaches. 

But we suggest that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that combination of hard and soft measures is likely to be more effective than single measures taken on their own.  

SAPEA is known for bringing together scientists from all disciplines and across Europe. What was it like to work in such group? Was there anything that surprised you in this way of working? 

It was actually a pleasure to work with members of the Working Group. We worked very well together and were able to combine a whole series of different disciplinary approaches, including psychology and sociology, geography, economics, and some natural science. 

So the lessons on the whole were very positive, in terms of collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. Where there were differences, they were mostly resolved through mutual understanding and cooperative learning.  So for example some would advocate quantitative others more qualitative approaches, or some might take a more individualistic, psychological approach, whereas others would think more sociologically about the need for addressing collective behaviour and a more social practice approach.  But on the whole we came to a consensus view, the report is signed by all of us collectively, and it was a good lesson I think in terms of the need for interdisciplinary approaches to food system challenges. 

And Advisors to the European Commission have explicitly asked for the social sciences perspective in this report.  Why is that? What makes this perspective so important in this project? 

The scoping paper to which we responded refers to a social science deficit in current approaches to the food system. And by that it argued that across the sciences in general there was good degree of agreement on what was needed, in terms of dietary change for example, or in terms of more sustainable agricultural production. 

But what was lacking was a sense of what works in terms of different policies, and that’s where social science perhaps can contribute most.  So through the systematic review process that underpinned our report, we were able to identify scientific work which had evaluated the effectiveness of different kinds of policies.  And that then provides an evidence-based approach to what works. 

We also used the systematic review process to identify a series of case-studiesof best practice, of things that might work at the local scale or within a single nation, but which might be scaled-up, or rolled out across Europe more generally. 

Well thank you very much! 

Thank you! 

PEriTiA Call for Papers: Social Indicators of Trust in Experts

ALLEA is pleased to share a PEriTiA Call for Papers for the upcoming international workshop “Social Indicators of Trust in Experts” to be held in Paris on 1-2 October 2020. The deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to 30 April. The aim of this event is to help understand what informal social indicators people use in order to evaluate the trustworthiness of experts.

PEriTiA International Workshop: Social Indicators of Trust in Experts

Date: October 1-2 2020

Organizer(s): Gloria Origgi and Ty Branch, PEriTiA

Location: Paris, Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS)

Keynote speakers: Dan Sperber, Mark Alfano, Cristina Bicchieri

Call for Papers

When we are not competent enough ourselves, we rely on experts to advise us and to act in our best interest, with the vulnerability involved in such a dependence on the competence and goodwill of others. How do we evaluate the trustworthiness of experts? Since we appeal to experts when we lack relevant epistemic competence, we cannot judge their trustworthiness on direct epistemic grounds. Reliance on experts and appeal to their domains of expertise extends well beyond traditional measures of impact, authority, and ranking. Formal indicators are complemented by informal social indicators (quality, credibility and trustworthiness), which work as cues of reputation that are distributed in a social environment.

The aim of this conference, as part of the EU funded project PEriTiA – Policy, Expertise, and Trust in Action, is to help understand what informal social indicators people use in order to evaluate the trustworthiness of experts. Among the informal social indicators there are emotions, gossip, authority, social status and the biases that underscore them. For example, when lay persons rapidly estimate the credibility of a doctor, they rely on informal social indicators like recommendations from trusted individuals (word-of-mouth), perceived social prestige (social status), and emotional response to the doctor. Such examples show how social indicators can combine and conflict in expected and unexpected ways, the consequences of this socially shaped reliance on expertise, and their overall social impact.

On the subject of informal social indicators, we welcome theoretical and empirical contributions (including case studies) addressing epistemic, normative and practical aspects of trust in experts. Questions/topics for consideration include, but are not limited to:

  1. How do people use reputation in order to establish the epistemic credibility of experts?
  2. What is epistemic authority and when is it reasonable to attribute it to experts?
  3. How status relations influence the credibility of experts?
  4. To what extent can gossip be a reliable way of extracting information from an epistemic social environment?
  5. What are the social biases that participate into the formation of credibility deficits of a group?
  6. What are the emotional aspects that influence the attribution of epistemic authority and status to experts?

Papers will be presented in sessions of 40 minutes and a selection of papers will be published in a journal.

Abstract submission details

We invite abstracts of 500-1000 words by 30 April 2020.

Abstracts should be sent to SocialIndicatorsParis2020@gmail.com.

Information regarding acceptance should be available by mid-May.

The shift to a more sustainable food system is inevitable. Here’s how to make it happen

Europe’s top scientists agree that a radical change is coming in how we produce and distribute food, to ensure food security and deliver healthy diets for all.

Now a new report from SAPEA lays out the social science evidence on how that transition can happen in an inclusive, just and timely way.

The Evidence Review Report ‘A sustainable food system for the European Union’ was coordinated by ALLEA and it provides an evidence base for the scientific opinion of the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisors. It was requested by the College of Commissioners and written by a multidisciplinary group of leading scientists, nominated by academies across Europe.

Based on the best available evidence and supported by a detailed systematic review, the report concludes that the key steps towards the new model are not only to reduce food waste and to change our consumption patterns — but also to recontextualise how we think about food in the first place.

Professor Peter Jackson, the chair of the working group that wrote the report, said:

“Food is an incredibly complex system, with social, economic and ecological components. Yet, it contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and plays a key role in driving climate change. The food system is responsible for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates the annual financial cost of wasted food to be €900 billion in economic costs and an additional €800 billion in social costs. That’s why ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option.

“Our report doesn’t stop at highlighting the problems, which are now widely recognised. It also provides a range of evidence-based examples about how the transition to a sustainable food system can happen.”

Among the report’s other main conclusions are:

  • The transition to a more just and sustainable food system needs to be coordinated at multiple levels of governance and involve a range of actors in both land-based and marine environments.
  • To change how our society consumes food, we must first change people’s routines, habits and norms. Behaviour change is best effected with joined-up actions, addressing groups rather than individuals.
  • Taxation and legislation are key ways to drive change, while European policies in agriculture and fisheries offer great opportunities for developing robustness and sustainability in food production.

The report informs the Scientific Opinion from the European Commission’s Group of Advisors, which is also being published today which in turn will inform the Commission’s new ‘Farm to Fork strategy for a sustainable food system’.

Call for nominations for the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors

European scientific and research community organisations are invited to nominate outstanding candidates for membership of the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission. 

The deadline for submissions is 15 June 2020 (12:00 CET). These submissions should be sent to EC-SAM@ec.europa.eu with “GCSA Nominations 2020” in the subject line. Details of the submissions process can be found on the website of the European Commission.  

According to the European Commission website, the identification committee will consider specific factors and criteria for the selection process. Gender balance, the reflection of the breadth of the research community across Europe and consideration of younger next-generation leaders, are among these.

European Open Science Cloud needs improved legal and technical foundations to go global

ALLEA welcomes in a new statement the progress of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and highlights its great potential to accelerate the transition towards open science. The document presents a set of legal instruments and technical considerations which aim to reinforce the sustainability of EOSC. 

Data are vital resources for research and technological development and the lifeblood of artificial intelligence. Deploying EOSC, an open platform of research tools, infrastructures and procedures for data and research sharing across borders and scientific disciplines, can significantly foster knowledge exchange and facilitate the quicker uptake of scientifically informed policies to tackle major societal challenges like climate change or health threats. 

Such an ambitious and wide-ranging endeavour can only succeed with appropriate legal and technical instruments which ensure an encouraging research environment for individual researchers and high-risk research investments in today’s global and competitive world.   

“The deployment of the European Open Science Cloud is clearly needed for accelerating the sharing of data and research results within the scientific community in Europe and beyond. Together with other measures favouring open science, this will help to find fact-based responses to major societal challenges such as fighting the spread of coronavirus. Interoperability with other data clouds should be ensured, and, where necessary, reciprocity of access or other conditions could be required to promote the progress of science while supporting investments in research”, says Alain Strowel, Chair of the Permanent Working Group Intellectual Property Rights. 

IPR and strategic considerations

ALLEA was amongst the first endorsers of the EOSC declaration in 2017 and since then has closely monitored deliberations and developments regarding its implementation. This statement points to still unaddressed questions especially in the area of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). It also advocates that the Rules of Participation (RoP) should further define access conditions in line with the EOSC principles to make the cloud “as open as possible and as closed as necessary”.  

Those regulations should set proportionate limitations in “duly justified cases” of IPR concerns, national security, and alike. In particular, the statement notes that the current RoP only consider ‘copyright’ as a category of IPRs and disregards patents, the most important tool for protecting research inventions, and for incentivising and securing high-risk investments in research and development, both in the public and private sectors. 

ALLEA’s statement presents necessary considerations to establish a solid legal and technical framework for an effective and sustainable open science cloud, including among others: 

  • Aoverall legal design that ensures reciprocity of access for participating researchers submitting data according to the EOSC RoP and to EOSC compliant users of data stored elsewhere. 
  • Interoperability with other regional data clouds which also promote interoperability and development of common global standards enabling scholarship and science to be shared as public goods for the benefit of all. 
  • Staggered security regulations as regards data and processes, with due consideration of all relevant aspects (i.e. machines, tools, people), while different requirements, depending on the security level, must also be foreseen. 
  • Open source should be promoted as a standard to ensure security.  
  • Licensing models should be harmonised so that detrimental effects of different types of open source licences are mitigated.  
  • Data should be stored, unless it is proven impossible, on servers and equipment operated in Europe and subject to EU rules. 

 

Download Statement

 

Breakthrough Prize: Deadline extended to 10 April

The deadline for nominations for the 2021 Breakthrough Prizes has been extended to 10 April 2020. The Breakthrough Prize honours outstanding, primarily recent, achievements in the categories of Fundamental Physics, Life Sciences and Mathematics. The Prize includes special categories to honour junior researchers (New Horizons) and lifetime achievements.

Visit https://breakthroughprize.org to view prize rules, register to nominate or login to renominate past candidates.

ALLEA General Assembly meetings in London cancelled

Due to the ongoing restrictions on public gatherings as a result of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, ALLEA and the hosting academies have made the decision to cancel all physical meetings in the context of this year’s ALLEA General Assembly.  

We are therefore announcing that the public symposium Research Collaboration in Changing Times on 4 June at the Royal Society will regrettably not take place.  

The business meeting for ALLEA delegates, originally scheduled for 3 June at the British Academy, will be reorganised to take place by correspondence. Member Academies and their delegates will be informed about the procedures in due course. 

This is a difficult decision for ALLEA and the hosting academies in Ireland and the UK, but the health and safety of participants and staff remain our top priority. 

We are asking for your understanding and we are hoping to be able to welcome you on another occasion. 

 

 

Picture credit: Eric Schmidt

‘Trust in a Changing World’ – PEriTiA kicks off with international symposium in Dublin

PEriTiA – Policy, Expertise and Trust in Action – has been launched today with the inaugural symposium ‘Trust in a Changing World’ hosted by University College Dublin (UCD). Funded for three years by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme, the project addresses the rise of an anti-elitist discourse questioning the trustworthiness of scientific expertise. Researchers will explore the conditions under which people trust expert opinion that shapes public policy.

Keynote speakers of today’s multi-disciplinary symposium include David Farrell (UCD/Royal Irish Academy), José van Dijck (Utrecht University/KNAW), Bobby Duffy (King’s College London), Susan Owens (University of Cambridge/British Academy), and Judith Simon (University of Hamburg).

The discussion will help illuminate the main topics to be further investigated by PEriTiA in the next 3 years. You can follow the discussions on Twitter and Facebook under the hashtag #TrustInAction. The lectures will be made available on PEriTiA’s website.

Learn more about PEritiA

Follow the project on Twitter and Facebook

Project on research ethics and research integrity successfully concluded

After three years of work on the ENERI (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity) project, ALLEA and its partners have successfully concluded the project during a final conference at the end of October in Brussels.

As a project, ENERI sought to improve the exchange between experts in research ethics and research integrity across Europe by providing learning material and platforms for exchange for research integrity and ethics practitioners.

While working on this project ALLEA built valuable relationships with the European networks for research ethics, ENRIO, and for research integrity, EUREC, which are an excellent basis for future joint activities and will be put to good use.

The main outcomes of ENERI are:

1) The ENERI E-community

The e-community is a platform for experts in research ethics and research integrity to discuss and share information and documents across Europe. The community is growing and hosts currently just fewer than 200 members. The project ended but the community, which is hosted on SINAPSE, a service provided by the European Commission, will continue to exist.

It is still possible to become a member of the group. To do so, please send a message to Panagiotis Kavouras (kavouras@chemeng.ntua.gr), the administrator of the page.

2) The Research Integrity Handbook

The handbook takes stock of different practices concerning the investigation of research misconduct in different parts of the continent. In the absence of harmonized and formalised European legislation the handbook compiled existing best practices. It is used as a basis for further harmonization on the European level, but also to assist countries with emerging research ethics and integrity structures to quickly establish common standards.

3) The ENERI decision tree

The decision tree is a handy tool for researchers as well as members of research ethics and research integrity committees to reflect on ethical issues and challenges before and during research. It is strongly recommended to work with the ENERI decision tree alongside the H2020 Ethics self-assessment and the European Commission‘s guidelines on ethics and data protection .

ENERI has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 710184.

More information on: www.eneri.eu