Paper by Roger Koppl: “In a modern democracy, a public health system includes mechanisms for the provision of expert scientific advice to elected officials. The decisions of elected officials generally will be degraded by expert failure, that is, the provision of bad advice. The theory of expert failure suggests that competition among experts generally is the best safeguard against expert failure. Monopoly power of experts increases the chance of expert failure. The risk of expert failure also is greater when scientific advice is provided by only one or a few disciplines. A national government can simulate a competitive market for expert advice by structuring the scientific advice it receives to ensure the production of multiple perspectives from multiple disciplines. I apply these general principles to the United Kingdom’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)….(More)”.
It’s not all about populism: grassroots democracy is thriving across Europe
Richard Youngs at The Guardian: “The past decade has been a bruising one for the health of European democracy. The dramatic authoritarian turns in Hungary and Poland have attracted most attention, but nearly all European governments have chipped away at civil liberties, judicial independence and civil society.
With Covid accentuating many of the challenges posed by populism, disinformation and a collapse in public trust, the narrative of democracy labouring in deep crisis is now well established. Yet as the threats have mounted, so have efforts to defend and rethink Europe’s democratic practices.
Most spontaneously, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of mass protests, even during the pandemic, many in support of democratic values. People have mobilised against corruption or around particular policy issues and then taken on a broader democratic reform agenda. This has been the case in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, the women’s strike in Poland, the Sardines movement in Italy, the Million Moments movement in the Czech Republic and protests in Malta initially triggered by journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. Climate movements such as Extinction Rebellion are also beginning to marry their ecology demands to concerns with democratic reform. People invented new forms of protest under Covid: for example, Polish citizens protested against new abortion laws and the timing of elections by taking to their cars in procession, honking horns and playing alarms out of their windows, still in full compliance with restrictions on public gatherings.
New civil society initiatives aim at tackling polarisation. One example is a project called Arguments Against Aggression, which tries to equip people with more empathetic communication and debating skills than those typically experienced on social media and has now run in seven EU member states. Meanwhile, Covid has given rise to hundreds of civic mutual aid initiatives, such as En Première Ligne in France whose website puts those who need help directly in touch with local volunteers. Civil society organisations are also working more closely with protest movements. The Corruption Kills group in Romania, for example, evolved from anti-corruption protests and an outpouring of public anger at the deaths of more than 60 people in a nightclub fire. Online initiatives, meanwhile, are reclaiming the positive democratic potential of digital technology, finding new formats to feed citizens’ views into policymaking.
More and more citizens’ assemblies have sprung up…(More)”.
Can Gamification be Used for Spatial Energy Data Collection?
Paper by Ernst Gebetsroither-Geringer et al regarding “Experiences Gained from the Development of the HotCity Game to Collect Urban Waste Heat Sources”: Availability of reliable data is one of the most important elements for fact-based decisions. Urban planning and spatial energy planning often suffers from a lack of availability of good, validated and up-to-date data sets. Furthermore, integrated spatial and energy planning needs to incorporate new spatially distributed energy sources and understand how these sources can be used in the future to meet climate protection targets. These new energy sources can be, for example, waste heat from industrial food production, local industrial/commercial enterprises, data centers, or urban infrastructure such as tunnels and metro stations. The utilization of such waste heat sources in heating networks has been demonstrated several times, however, their proper identification in an urban environment can be challenging, especially for smaller and unconventional sources (Schmidt, 2020).
Gamification as an innovative way to collect the needed data was investigated within a national funded research project called “HotCity”. Gamification builds on the use of game mechanics in contexts that are, by nature, unrelated to the game (Deterding, 2011). Within the project the HotCity-App was developed enabling users to spatially report and evaluate different sources of waste heat. The gamification of data collection was also intended to raise awareness of waste heat and energy use on the one hand, and to facilitate the collection of data from small energy sources on the other. For the first time, the game framework is secured using a blockchain and mapped by means of a token system. The HotCity-App was tested in the Austrian cities Vienna and Graz as a proof of concept to analyse if and how the gamification approach can deliver valid results….(More)”
Contemplating the COVID crisis: what kind of inquiry do we need to learn the right lessons?
Essay by Geoff Mulgan: “Boris Johnson has announced a UK inquiry into COVID-19 to start in 2022, a parallel one is being planned in Scotland, and many more will emerge all over the world. But how should such inquiries be designed and run? What kind of inquiry can do most to mitigate or address the harms caused by the pandemic?
We’re beginning to look at this question at IPPO (the International Public Policy Observatory), including a global scan with our partners, INGSA and the Blavatnik School of Government, on how inquiries are being developed around the world, plus engagement with governments and parliaments across the UK.
It’s highly likely that the most traditional models of inquiries will be adopted – just because that’s what people at the top are used to, or because they look politically expedient. But we think it would be good to look at the options and to encourage some creativity.
The pandemic has prompted extraordinary innovation; there is no reason why inquiries should be devoid of any. Moreover, the pandemic affected every sector of life – and was far more ‘systemic’ than the kinds of issue or event addressed by typical inquiries in the past. That should be reflected in how lessons are learned.
So here are some initial thoughts on what the defaults look like, why they are likely to be inadequate, and what some alternatives might be. This article proposes the idea of a ‘whole of society’ inquiry model which has a distributed rather than centralised structure, which focuses on learning more than blame, and which can connect the thousands of organisations that have had to make so many difficult decisions throughout the crisis, and also the lived experiences of public and frontline staff. We hope that it will prompt responses, including better ideas about what kinds of inquiry will serve us best…
There are many different options for inquiries, and this is a good moment to consider them. They range from ‘truth and reconciliation’ inquiries to no-fault compensation processes to the ways industries such as airlines deal with crashes, through to academic analyses of events like the 2007/08 financial crash. They can involve representative or random samples of the public (e.g. citizens’ assemblies and juries) or just experts and officials…
The idea of a distributed inquiry is not entirely new. Colombia, for example, attempted something along these lines as part of its peace process. Many health systems use methods such as ‘collaboratives’ to organise accelerated learning. Doubtless there is much to be learned from these and other examples. For the UK in particular, it is vital there are contextually appropriate designs for the four nations as well as individual cities and regions.
As already indicated, a key is to combine sensible inquiries focused on particular sectors (e.g. what did universities do, what worked…) and make connections between them. As IPPO’s work on COVID inequalities has highlighted, the patterns are very complex but involved a huge amount of harm – captured in our ‘inequalities matrix’, below.
So, while the inquiries need to dig deep on multiple fronts and to look more like a matrix than a single question, what might connect all the inquiries would be a commitment to some common elements which would be shared:
- Facts: In each case, a precondition for learning is establishing the facts, as well as the evidence on what did or didn’t work well. This is a process closer to what evidence intermediary organisations – such as the UK’s What Works Network – do than a judicial process designed for binary judgments (guilty/not guilty). This would be helped by some systematic curation and organisation of the evidence in easily accessible forms, of the kind that IPPO is doing….(More)”
New report confirms positive momentum for EU open science
Press release: “The Commission released the results and datasets of a study monitoring the open access mandate in Horizon 2020. With a steadily increase over the years and an average success rate of 83% open access to scientific publications, the European Commission is at the forefront of research and innovation funders concluded the consortium formed by the analysis company PPMI (Lithuania), research and innovation centre Athena (Greece) and Maastricht University (the Netherlands).
The Commission sought advice on a process and reliable metrics through which to monitor all aspects of the open access requirements in Horizon 2020, and inform how to best do it for Horizon Europe – which has a more stringent and comprehensive set of rights and obligations for Open Science.
The key findings of the study indicate that the early European Commission’s leadership in the Open Science policy has paid off. The Excellent Science pillar in Horizon 2020 has led the success story, with an open access rate of 86%. Of the leaders within this pillar are the European Research Council (ERC) and the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme, with open access rates of over 88%.
Other interesting facts:
- In terms of article processing charges (APCs), the study estimated the average cost in Horizon 2020 of publishing an open access article to be around EUR 2,200. APCs for articles published in ‘hybrid’ journals (a cost that will no longer be eligible under Horizon Europe), have a higher average cost of EUR 2,600.
- Compliance in terms of depositing open access publications in a repository (even when publishing open access through a journal) is relatively high (81.9%), indicating that the current policy of depositing is well understood and implemented by researchers.
- Regarding licences, 49% of Horizon 2020 publications were published using Creative Commons (CC) licences, which permit reuse (with various levels of restrictions) while 33% use publisher-specific licences that place restrictions on text and data mining (TDM).
- Institutional repositories have responded in a satisfactory manner to the challenge of providing FAIR access to their publications, amending internal processes and metadata to incorporate necessary changes: 95% of deposited publications include in their metadata some type of persistent identifier (PID).
- Datasets in repositories present a low compliance level as only approximately 39% of Horizon 2020 deposited datasets are findable, (i.e., the metadata includes a PID and URL to the data file), and only around 32% of deposited datasets are accessible (i.e., the data file can be fetched using a URL link in the metadata). Horizon Europe will hopefully allow to achieve better results.
- The study also identified gaps in the existing Horizon 2020 open access monitoring data, which pose further difficulties in assessing compliance. Self-reporting by beneficiaries also highlighted a number of issues…(More)”
Commission publishes study on the impact of Open Source on the European economy
Press Release (European Commission): “It is estimated that companies located in the EU invested around €1 billion in Open Source Software in 2018, which brought about a positive impact on the European economy of between €65 and €95 billion.
The study predicts that an increase of 10% in contributions to Open Source Software code would annually generate an additional 0.4% to 0.6% GDP, as well as more than 600 additional ICT start-ups in the EU. Case studies reveal that by procuring Open Source Software instead of proprietary software, the public sector could reduce the total cost of ownership, avoid vendor lock-in and thus increase its digital autonomy.
The study gives a number of specific public policy recommendations aimed at achieving a digitally autonomous public sector, open research and innovation enabling European growth, and a digitised and internally competitive industry. In the long-term, the findings of the study may be used to reinforce the open source dimension in the development of future software and hardware policies for the EU industry.
Moreover, since October 2020 the Commission has its own new Open Source Software Strategy 2020-2023, which further encourages and leverages the transformative, innovative and collaborative potential of open source, in view of achieving the goals of the overarching Digital Strategy of the Commission and contributing to the Digital Europe programme. The Commission’s Strategy puts a special emphasis on the sharing and reuse of software solutions, knowledge and expertise as well as on increasing the use of open source in information technologies and other strategic areas….(More)”.
Study finds growing government use of sensitive data to ‘nudge’ behaviour
Article by Alex Hern: “A new form of “influence government”, which uses sensitive personal data to craft campaigns aimed at altering behaviour has been “supercharged” by the rise of big tech firms, researchers have warned.
National and local governments have turned to targeted advertisements on search engines and social media platforms to try to “nudge” the behaviour of the country at large, the academics found.
The shift to this new brand of governance stems from a marriage between the introduction of nudge theory in policymaking and an online advertising infrastructure that provides unforeseen opportunities to run behavioural adjustment
Some of the examples found by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) range from a Prevent-style scheme to deter young people from becoming online fraudsters to tips on how to light a candle properly. While targeted advertising is common across business, one researcher argues that the government using it to drive behavioural change could create a perfect feedback loop.
“With the government, you’ve got access to all this data where you can see pretty much in real time who you need to talk to demographically, and then on the other end you can actually see, well, ‘did this make a difference?’,” said Ben Collier, of the University of Edinburgh. “The government doing this supercharges the ability of it to actually work.”
The British government’s fondness for minor behavioural modification tactics began in the David Cameron era. Since the foundation of the Behavioural Insight Team – or “nudge unit” – at No 10, ministers eagerly looked for tweaks to help people pay car tax or encourage people to buy loft insulation.
The examples of influence government uncovered by the SCCJR range from deeply serious to almost endearingly silly. At one end of the spectrum is the National Crime Agency’s “Cyber-Prevent” programme, which involves identifying young people at risk of becoming involved in cybercrime…(More)”.
Empowered Data Societies: A Human-Centric Approach to Data Relationships
World Economic Forum: “Despite ever-increasing supply and demand, data often remains siloed and unavailable to those who seek to use it to benefit people, communities and society.
In this whitepaper, the World Economic Forum and the City of Helsinki propose a new, human-centric approach to making data better available. By prioritizing the values, needs and expectations of people, policy-makers can drive meaningful actions with positive outcomes for society while maintaining the utmost respect for the people who are part of it.
This paper provides frameworks, insights, and best practices for public sector employees and elected officials –from mayors and ministers to data scientists and service developers –to adapt and build systems that use data in responsible and innovative ways….(More)”.
Artificial intelligence masters’ programs
An analysis “of curricula building blocks” by JRC-European Commission: “This report identifies building blocks of master programs on Artificial Intelligence (AI), on the basis of the existing programs available in the European Union. These building blocks provide a first analysis that requires acceptance and sharing by the AI community. The proposal analyses first, the knowledge contents, and second, the educational competences declared as the learning outcomes, of 45 post-graduate academic masters’ programs related with AI from universities in 13 European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden in the EU; plus Switzerland and the United Kingdom).
As a closely related and relevant part of Informatics and Computer Science, major AI-related curricula on data science have been also taken into consideration for the analysis. The definition of a specific AI curriculum besides data science curricula is motivated by the necessity of a deeper understanding of topics and skills of the former that build up the foundations of strong AI versus narrow AI, which is the general focus of the latter. The body of knowledge with the proposed building blocks for AI consists of a number of knowledge areas, which are classified as Essential, Core, General and Applied.
First, the AI Essentials cover topics and competences from foundational disciplines that are fundamental to AI. Second, topics and competences showing a close interrelationship and specific of AI are classified in a set of AI Core domain-specific areas, plus one AI General area for non-domain-specific knowledge. Third, AI Applied areas are built on top of topics and competences required to develop AI applications and services under a more philosophical and ethical perspective. All the knowledge areas are refined into knowledge units and topics for the analysis. As the result of studying core AI knowledge topics from the master programs sample, machine learning is observed to prevail, followed in order by: computer vision; human-computer interaction; knowledge representation and reasoning; natural language processing; planning, search and optimisation; and robotics and intelligent automation. A significant number of master programs analysed are significantly focused on machine learning topics, despite being initially classified in another domain. It is noteworthy that machine learning topics, along with selected topics on knowledge representation, depict a high degree of commonality in AI and data science programs. Finally, the competence-based analysis of the sample master programs’ learning outcomes, based on Bloom’s cognitive levels, outputs that understanding and creating cognitive levels are dominant.
Besides, analysing and evaluating are the most scarce cognitive levels. Another relevant outcome is that master programs on AI under the disciplinary lenses of engineering studies show a notable scarcity of competences related with informatics or computing, which are fundamental to AI….(More)”.
Public engagement and net zero
Report by Tom Sasse, Jill Rutter, and Sarah Allan: “The government must do more to involve the public in designing policies to help the UK transition to a zero-carbon economy.
This report, published in partnership with Involve, sets out recommendations for when and how policy makers should engage with citizens and residents – such as on designing taxes and subsidies to support the replacement of gas boilers or encouraging changes in diet – to deliver net zero.
But it warns there is limited government capability and expertise on public engagement and little co-ordination of activities across government. In many departments, engaging the public is not prioritised as a part of policy making.
Climate Assembly UK, organised in 2020 by parliament (not government), involved over a hundred members of the public, informed by experts, deliberating over the choices involved in the UK meeting its net zero target. But the government has not built on its success. It has yet to commit to making public engagement part of its net zero strategy, nor set out a clear plan for how it might go about it.
The report recommends that:
- departments invest in strengthening the public engagement expertise needed to plan and commission exercises effectively
- either the Cabinet Office or the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) take increased responsibility for co-ordinating net zero public engagement across government
- the government use its net zero strategy, due in the autumn of this year, to set out how it intends to use public engagement to inform the design of net zero policies
- the independent Climate Change Committee should play a greater role in advising government on what public engagement to commission….(More)”.