Young MVI member and social scientist Lotte Krabbenborg is fascinated by the question as to how citizens or users can be involved at an early stage in the public debate about the possible implications of new technology.

Lotte Krabbenborg can still remember the exact moment that she became fascinated by what later became her research subject. ‘That was near the end of my study at the University of Humanistic Studies. I visited a guest lecture given by Rinie van Est from the Rathenau Instituut at the University of Amsterdam about public opinion concerning technology development. When I subsequently saw a vacancy for a PhD project about the societal debate around technology, I seized the opportunity to delve into this research field.’

Krabbenborg is now assistant professor of Science in Society at Radboud University. She works on projects about a broad range of technologies, ranging from nanotechnology and the bio-based economy to self-monitoring apps for patients with chronic diseases.

NWO-MVI project about biomarkers
Her current NWO-MVI project concerns the use of biomarkers in oncology and psychiatry. ‘In the summer of 2016, an MVI call was published that allowed to connect with natural sciences projects that had already been awarded funding in the context of the Building Blocks of Life programme. I searched for projects within that programme with which I had an affinity. That is how I came into contact with Ronald Kanaar and Dik van Gent from Erasmus MC, and I decided to focus on the use of biomarkers – measurable indicators of a certain disease – for early diagnosis and individualised treatment.’

 

Tips for MVI applicants
For fellow researchers from the social sciences and humanities who are also considering submitting an application for MVI research, Krabbenborg has several concrete tips: ‘Start on time, even if there are no calls open. Make sure you have ideas so that you can immediately respond to any opportunities that arise. Furthermore, it is enormously helpful if you have already familiarised yourself with scientific literature in the natural sciences. What are the promises, who can you contact about these, how can you demonstrate the added value of a collaboration with you? In the contact with natural scientists, you should immediately make it clear that you are not a consultant but a researcher with your own questions and scientific methods.’

Involve companies
Krabbenborg has also gained some wisdom about involving companies in research. For her current MVI project, she mainly did cold acquisition, which cost a lot of time. ‘I approached several large pharmaceutical companies, visited them and pitched my plans. For most of these companies, the MVI approach was new; I still needed to carry out some missionary work. But eventually, I managed to put together a very interesting consortium.’
Learning about approach and interests beforehand helps in the case of companies too, she says. ‘MVI is not interesting for everybody. Try to reason from their perspective and consider what is in it for them. For example, I went to trade exhibitions frequented by companies, in my case in the medical sector. I can also imagine that taking a look at who the partners are in the projects already awarded funding can also help, as those already know about the MVI concept and clearly see its added value.’

Leverage effect of projects
Krabbenborg says that her NWO-MVI projects work like “bridging events”. ‘For my research, it is important to know what deliberative decision-making processes in companies and government bodies look like. MVI projects provide me with an opportunity to study this. In addition, as a result of my NWO-MVI projects, natural scientists now know where to find me. For example, I am now talking with several partners about possible follow-up research, such as lobby structures around medical tests. Why does one test manage to reach the market, but is another unable to? And which actors determine which tests are reimbursed by health insurers?’

Young MVI
As a member of Young MVI, Krabbenborg contributes ideas to how future NWO-MVI research could be improved. ‘An important consideration is the timing. Researchers need time to form a consortium and a valorisation panel. It is not helpful if they are only given two months for this, and especially not if that period falls within the summer holidays. Furthermore, in my experience, MVI research is still all too often an afterthought. If the socio-ethical aspects of technology development are to be taken seriously, then the initiative should not only be left to humanities and social science researchers, but especially to natural sciences researchers. For example, it should be ensured that humanities, natural sciences and social sciences researchers are equally represented in the writing groups for new research programmes, so that all three blood types can see themselves in the programme text. And in general, I think that funders of humanities and social sciences research should also see these fields far more as independent disciplines in which innovation also needs to take place.’

The Young Academy
As a recently appointed member of The Young Academy, Krabbenborg also wants to emphasise this last message within political circles. ‘Together with the Young Academy, I also want to call for policy measures such as the Dutch Research Agenda to be subjected to more evaluation studies. What has such a Dutch Research Agenda delivered, for example with respect to public participation in research, and what lessons have we learned from that for new funding instruments?’

Support for interdisciplinary research
Finally, Krabbenborg states that the setting up and realisation of interdisciplinary research does not happen automatically. ‘It’s great that NWO promotes interdisciplinary research. However, researchers are rarely used to working with other disciplines. It takes time to get to know and appreciate each other’s approaches. NWO could accelerate this process somewhat, for example by offering training courses or sharing best practices.’