We have to go back, back to the future! Reflecting on 75 years of human factors in the UK to shape a future of responsible artificial intelligence innovation.

The origins of Human Factors (HF) are rooted in the Second World War. It is a sign of the times that 75 years on from the formation of the Ergonomics Research Society, discussions occur as to whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) could/should be capable of controlling weaponry in a theatre of war. HF can support the design of safe, ethical, and usable AI: but there is little evidence of HF influencing industrial organisations developing AI. A review of the history of HF was conducted to understand how the influence of discipline on AI development may be optimised. The field may need to become broader and more inclusive, given the potential implications of innovation such as AI. The field of Responsible Research and Innovation can help the HF Practitioner ensure that the design and application of AI based technology serves to improve human well-being and optimise system performance over the next 75 years.Practitioner summary: A review of the history and origins of Human Factors was conducted. The review aimed to learn from the development of the discipline over the last 75 years to provide insights of what can be done to optimise the influence of HF to design safe, ethical, and usable artificial intelligence.

Building the bioeconomy: A targeted assessment approach to identifying biobased technologies, challenges and opportunities.

The authors explore opportunities, challenges, and strategies to translate and responsibly scale innovative biobased technologies to build more sustainable bioeconomies. The pandemic and other recent disruptions increased exposure to issues of resilience and regional imbalance, highlighting a need for production and consumption regimes centred more on local biobased resources and dispersed production. The authors review potential biobased technology strategies and identify promising and feasible options for the United Kingdom. Initial landscape and bibliometric analysis identified 50 potential existing and emerging biobased technologies, which were assessed for their ability to fulfil requirements related to biobased production, national applicability, and economic-, societal-, and environmental-benefits, leading to identification of 18 promising biobased production technologies. Further analysis and focus-group discussion with industrial, governmental, academic, agricultural, and social stakeholders, identified three technology clusters for targeted assessment, drawing on cellulose-, lignin-, and seaweed feedstocks. Case studies were developed for each cluster, addressing conversations around sustainable management, use of biomass feedstocks, and associated environmental-, social-, and economic challenges. Cases are presented with discussion of insights and implications for policy. The approach presented is put forward as a scalable assessment method that can be useful in prompting, informing, and advancing discussion and deliberation on opportunities and challenges for biobased transformations.

Analysing responsible innovation along a value chain-A single-cell protein case study.

The British Standards Institution's Publicly Available Specification 440 (PAS 440) provides a Responsible Innovation Framework (RIF) that companies can use to continuously monitor the societal, environmental and health benefits and risks of their innovations, as well as relevant changes to the supply chain and regulations. PAS 440 is intended to help companies achieve the benefits of innovation in a timely manner and avoid any potential harm or unintended misuse of a new product, process or service. Here, the authors have applied the PAS 440 RIF to a novel single-cell protein (SCP) animal feed ingredient taking into consideration the perspectives of the value chain partners (VCPs), companies and laboratories involved in an Innovate UK research project. The authors' findings show how VCPs can use PAS440 to demonstrate that they are innovating responsibly. Using this approach to responsible innovation along the value chain-from manufacturing scale-up, through regulatory approval, to incorporation in animal feed and from there to food on supermarket shelves-can support the development of innovations that contribute to the economic and environmental sustainability of the animal feed sector. The authors conclude that the PAS 440 Guide can facilitate the progress of a new product throughout a value chain and contribute to coordinating responsible behaviour among companies involved in the value chain.

Comment on "Reflections on patient engagement by patient partners: How it can go wrong".

As patient-advocacy, public policy and clinical researchers with special knowledge on Responsible Research Innovation (RRI) governance and the public health and psychology underlying patient engagement, we read with interest the comment contribution by Richards et al., "Reflections on patient engagement by patient partners: How it can go wrong" (Richards et al. in Res Involv Engagem 9:41, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00454-13 ). As a way to help meet the "take-away actions for readers" included by the authors at the end of the article, we would like to further stimulate discussion with relevant stakeholder communities about the need to rethink the use of "expert patient". Based on our experience, the lack of a governance model engaging patients who are representative of the target patient community, as opposed to expert patients, is at the root of the tokenistic approach, the "patient partner as a checkmark statement" and the "lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners", which results in "patient engagement going wrong". According to our experience, the Responsible Research Innovation (RRI) MULTI-ACT model has the potential to help meet these challenges.

In their article, Richards et al. (Res Involv Engagem 9:41, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00454-13 ) reflect on the practices of patient engagement in research, highlighting not only the value and opportunity of including people suffering from a disease as coinvestigators in the research process but also the risks and errors that must be avoided in such a process. Along this line of discussion­and based on our experience of research, teaching and patient advocacy­we further reflect on the nature of the concept of "expert patient" in this paper. In particular, we argue for the importance of guaranteeing the wide inclusion of all the different kinds of "experiential knowledge" that patients may bring into the research project, and we question the risk of a poorly representative approach if only guided to select patients with acquired knowledge and expertise about the scientific research process itself. Based on our experience, the Responsible Research Innovation (RRI) governance models have the potential to help meet these challenges.

The agenda of the global patient reported outcomes for multiple sclerosis (PROMS) initiative: Progresses and open questions.

On 12 September 2019, the global Patient Reported Outcome for Multiple Sclerosis (PROMS) Initiative was launched at the 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The multi-stakeholder PROMS Initiative is jointly led by the European Charcot Foundation (ECF) and the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF), with the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society (AISM) acting as the lead agency for and on behalf of the global MSIF movement. The initiative has the ambitious mission to (i) maximize the impact of science with and of patient input on the life of people affected by MS, and (ii) to represent a unified view on Patient-Reported Outcomes for MS to people affected by MS, healthcare providers, regulatory agencies and Health Technologies Assessments agencies. Equipped with an innovative participatory governance of an international and interdisciplinary network of different stakeholders, PROMS has the potential to guide future breakthroughs in MS patient-focused research and care. In this paper we present the progresses of the global PROMS Initiative and discuss the open questions that we aim to address.

Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives.

Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to the nature of understanding the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives.