Closed

Next generation AI and Human Behaviour: promoting an ethical approach

HORIZON Coordination and Support Actions

Basic Information

Identifier
HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-12
Programme
Enhancing the European R&I system
Programme Period
2021 - 2027
Status
Closed (31094503)
Opening Date
December 5, 2023
Deadline
March 11, 2024
Deadline Model
single-stage
Budget
€2,000,000
Min Grant Amount
€2,000,000
Max Grant Amount
€2,000,000
Expected Number of Grants
1
Keywords
HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-12HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01Ethics in engineering and technologiesEthics in research and innovation

Description

Expected Outcome:

In order to promote a responsible, trustworthy, and human-centric design and development of the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI), proposed actions are expected to contribute to the following outcomes:

  • The operationalisation of available general guidance on the ethics of AI into practical specific guidelines. These guidelines will focus on the impact of AI on human cognition and behaviour. The guidelines must also address the ethics dimension of the study of human behaviour and cognition in developing and improving AI systems. The guidelines should incorporate ethics into the relevant research and development processes and take into account strategies for ensuring adequate participation of all those affected by the development, deployment and use of the relevant applications;
  • Develop and validate education and training material reflecting the produced guidelines. This should be based on participatory processes involving all relevant stakeholders, including citizen groups and industry.
Scope:

While the European Union has been a front runner in the global effort to formulate guidelines and regulate AI, it is certain that the road ahead will be full of challenges. One of the key challenges is that the meaning and appropriate interpretation of the key concepts and principles in AI guidelines will often be highly context specific. For example, the ethical risks related to the development or use of AI-based techniques for emotion recognition might be very different when applied for recruitment and selection purposes than when used for detecting levels of distress to assist in dealing with emergency calls or to detect situations of abuse. Similarly, AI-enabled differentiation based on physical characteristics may be unethical in the context of law enforcement but useful in a medical context.

At the same time, research and development of AI-based application surges in all domains, from education, over measuring consumer behaviour, to assisting in making important decisions, such as supporting the mental health of people, promoting driver safety, and filtering job candidates.

Current developments and learning in the field of AI come from a strong collaboration of multidisciplinary teams working together to acquire further knowledge on human cognition and behaviour in order to understand, predict and impact human behaviour (e.g., for improving health or sustainability). To develop affective AI systems, researchers aim to improve their understanding of the way the human brain learns and transfers knowledge. Potentially, this understanding will help to build explainable, trustworthy, and human-centric AI systems and processes. However, while systems for automatic emotion recognition and sentiment analysis can be facilitators of enormous progress (e.g., in improving public health and commerce), they are also enablers of considerable harm (e.g., acting against dissidents, manipulating voters).

In addition to ensuring the protection of research participants, research ethics review plays a pivotal role in facilitating the integration of ethical concerns into research projects and protocols from the conception phase. While ensuring the development of ethical AI will require technical solutions - for example to improve transparency and explainability - guidance for the operationalisation of AI ethical principles (in a non-technical manner) needs to be developed and continuously evaluated in light of new developments in the field (in particular the increasing in-depth study of human behaviour in AI research and development).

Therefore, as policy-makers and AI actors around the world move from principles to implementation, the action should:

  • To better understand the ethical challenges (1) associated with the study of human behaviour and cognition to support the development or improve AI systems and (2) related to the impact of AI on human cognition and behaviour, the current landscape should be reviewed and three chosen exemplary areas of research can be selected (such as of emotion recognition applications, deep learning and general intelligence);
  • Establish specialised, inclusive networks of expertise, comprised of multidisciplinary teams (including, amongst others, engineers, data scientists, legal experts, ethicists, cognitive researchers, researchers with expertise in other relevant areas, research administrators and policy experts);
  • In collaboration with the networks of experts, and based on findings and case-studies, develop operational guidelines for AI systems that build on the study of human cognition and behaviour. These guidelines should incorporate ethics into the relevant research and design processes and facilitate the ethical assessment and auditing of research projects and outcomes (including toolboxes for algorithmic impact assessment). The guidelines should target the research community, with an emphasis on early career researchers as well as the ethics experts (e.g., members of ethics review committees) and project managers. The developed guidelines must adjust the ethics-by-design approaches (as included in the guidelines Ethics by Design and Ethics of Use Approaches for Artificial Intelligence[1]) to the relevant areas of study and development. These should include mechanisms to assess ‘ethics readiness levels’ for the relevant ‘technology readiness levels’ and encompass the relevant mechanisms to incorporate ethics-enhancing methods directly in the design of the research protocols and prototypes (e.g., privacy-enhancing technologies, explainability, human-centred approach in design);
  • Develop a toolbox for international cooperation in AI research and development in the relevant areas, taking into account the regulatory and ethical landscape in key strategic partners (for example China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Canada and the US). Incorporate principles of benefit sharing in AI research and development in accordance with the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (TRUST Code)[2];
  • As a result of the above activities, this action should also produce innovative training material (reflecting the guidelines) for students, early career and experienced researchers. In addition, Framework Programme ethics appraisal scheme experts should be trained (250-300). Close attention should be paid to gender balance, as well as to gender equality- and diversity-related ethical aspects. Feedback of the trainees should be used to improve the trainings.

All activities proposed must be based on multidisciplinary, inclusive networks of expertise, including amongst others, engineers, data scientists, AI legal experts, ethicists, cognitive researchers, linguists and educators, as well as private sector representatives. Every effort should be made to achieve a 45% - higher- female participation, especially among students, researchers, and experts. This should also involve relevant ethics and integrity networks, such as ENERI (European Network of Research Ethics Committees and Research Integrity Offices)[3] and ENRIO[4] or (associations of) European networks of (early) career researchers and/or educators in the field of research ethics and integrity. In addition, in order to improve the impact of the expected output (such as effectiveness of training courses, guidelines, toolboxes etc.), cooperation with research management offices and ethics officers in Research Performing Organisations is highly recommended.

In order to achieve the expected outcomes, cooperation with at least two actors from Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and/or African countries not associated to Horizon Europe is required.

It is important to ensure that the publicly available results from relevant EU funded research projects (e.g., SHERPA, SIENNA, TechEthos) [5] and the TRUSTWORTHY AI project[6] are taken into account, and that cooperation is envisaged with the beneficiaries of the Call HORIZON-WIDERA-2023-ERA2023 01-12 – The future role and format of research ethics review in the changing research environments”.

Consortia with EU partners or Associated Countries partners that have not previously collaborated are encouraged to participate.

Budgeted cooperation (including the necessary technical aspects) with the Embassy of Good Science must be included in the proposal, and the output material of the action must be made available on this e-platform.

Finally, the action should aim at valorising and widely disseminating the material produced beyond the community of ethics and integrity experts, in particular by promoting its use for the students and young researchers that will constitute the next generation of ethics experts and reviewers. The priorities of the EU Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027)[7] should be taken into account. In this perspective, cooperation should be sought with large university/research networks in order to enrich the relevant ethics related curriculum with the material produced by the action. In addition, National Contact Points should be provided with all the materials relevant to support their advisory activities.

For all deliverables and academic publications produced in the context of the activities, an authorship contribution statement should be added, in accordance with a recognised standardised taxonomy developed for this purpose (e.g., CRediT).

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use-approaches-for-artificial-intelligence_he_en.pdf

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/coc_research-resource-poor-settings_en.pdf

[3] http://eneri.eu/

[4] http://www.enrio.eu/

[5] Detailed information of the mentioned EU-funded projects can be found on CORDIS website: https://cordis.europa.eu/

[6] https://www.trustworthyaiproject.eu/framework-for-trustworthy-ai-education/

[7] https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/digital-education-action-plan_en

Destination & Scope

Introduction

Horizon Europe has a new level of ambition – to maximise the impact of the European Union's research and innovation funding for European science, the economy and the wider society. It marks a paradigm change in the design of the European R&I framework programmes (FP) from an activity-driven to an impact-driven programme. Coupled to this ambition is the relaunch of the European Research Area (ERA) as described in the Commission Communication “A new ERA for Research and Innovation” (COM/2020/628 final of 30.09.2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of R&I cooperation to provide solutions to society’s most demanding needs. With the priority on delivering Europe’s recovery as well as on the green and digital twin transitions, a new level of ambition, linking R&I better with the economy, and with education and training, is needed to match these challenges and put scientific knowledge to work.

The new ERA calls for deepening existing priorities and creating new initiatives by strengthening the mobility of researchers and the free flow of knowledge and technology, to improve access to excellence, boost market uptake and prioritise investment and reform. Working together has been the philosophy of the ERA since its launch; however, the green and digital transitions and the COVID recovery call for more and closer cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and stakeholders. They require the setting of new priorities, launching ambitious joint initiatives and developing common approaches between policies.

To address these requirements, Destination 3 of part 11 of the Horizon Europe work programme will support efforts to reform and enhance the European R&I system. Destination 3 is built around four strands corresponding to the four objectives set out in the ERA Communication:

  1. Prioritising investments and reforms in research and innovation;
  2. Improving access to excellence, progressing towards excellence across the whole EU and striving for stronger research and innovation systems;
  3. Translating R&I results into the economy to meet the digital and green transition objectives, and boost the resilience and competitiveness of our economies and societies;
  4. Deepening the ERA, to further progress the free circulation of knowledge and to ensure an upgraded, efficient and effective R&I system.

The principle of excellence, meaning that the best researchers with the best ideas that offer the best solutions to the societal challenges obtain funding, remains the cornerstone for all investments under the ERA.

Strand 1 recognises the importance of prioritising investments and reforms to accelerate the green and digital transformation and to increase competitiveness as well as the speed and depth of the recovery. It offers support for policy-makers and addresses the need for better analysis and evidence, including simplifying and facilitating the inter-play between national and European R&I systems.

Strand 2 addresses the need to improve access to excellence and to increase the performance of R&I systems, building on dedicated Horizon Europe measures as well as complementarities with smart specialisation strategies under the Cohesion Policy.

Strand 3 focuses on the importance of translating R&I results into the economy. R&I policies should aim to boost the resilience and competitiveness of our economies and societies.

Strand 4 addresses the challenge of deepening the ERA and includes Open Science, Higher Education and Researchers, Citizen Science, Science Education, Gender and Ethics. It aims at underpinning a new ERA benefitting from knowledge creation, circulation and use. This empowers higher education institutions and research organisations to embrace a transformative process; where a highly skilled workforce can circulate freely; and where research outputs are shared; where gender equality is assured; where the outcomes of R&I are understood, trusted and increasingly used, by educated informed scientists and citizens to the benefit of society.

Expected impact:

Proposals for topics under this Destination should set out a credible pathway to contributing to the following expected impacts, focussing on those that are most relevant to the respective topic:

  1. Reform and enhance of the European R&I system;
  2. Prioritisation of investments and reforms, accomplish the recovery and the twin transitions;
  3. Improved access to excellence;
  4. High quality scientific production and stronger translation of R&I results into the economy;
  5. Deepen the ERA;
  6. Coordinated national and regional R&I programmes by pooling national resources and contributing to the alignment of national research and innovation policies;
  7. Improved knowledge for policy making about the networking patterns of research support staff and research management;
  8. Synergies between research & innovation and higher education policies and programmes;
  9. Modernised higher education sector, adressing higher education, research, and innovation;
  10. Increased number of interconnected knowledge ecosystems, strong in knowledge creation, circulation and use;
  11. Researchers benefitting from attractive careers;
  12. Inclusive gender equality is promoted in the European research and innovation system;
  13. A more open and inclusive research and innovation system;
  14. Increased capacity in the EU R&I system to conduct open science and to set it as a modus operandi of modern science;
  15. Increased engagement of citizens with research and innovation;
  16. Increased alignment of strategic research with societal needs, expectations and values;
  17. Identify synergies between second and third level education, and between education and business;
  18. Increased trust in science and R&I outcomes, and greater two-way communication between science and society;
  19. Knowledge and a highly skilled workforce circulate freely;
  20. Improved capacities within the EU R&I system to conduct open science.

Eligibility & Conditions

General conditions

General conditions

1. Admissibility conditions: described in Annex A and Annex E of the Horizon Europe Work Programme General Annexes

Proposal page limits and layout: described in Part B of the Application Form available in the Submission System

2. Eligible countries: described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes

A number of non-EU/non-Associated Countries that are not automatically eligible for funding have made specific provisions for making funding available for their participants in Horizon Europe projects. See the information in the Horizon Europe Programme Guide.

Legal entities established in non-associated third countries may exceptionally participate in this Coordination and support action.

Legal entities established in non-associated third countries may exceptionally participate in this Coordination and support action.

Due to the scope of this topic, in addition to the minimum number of participants set out in the General Annexes, proposals must include at least two participants from Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and/or African countries non-associated to Horizon Europe. Participants from countries, which are not eligible for funding according to the General Annexes, may take part in the project as associated partners.

Due to the scope of this topic, legal entities established in non-associated third countries are exceptionally eligible for Union funding.

3. Other eligibility conditions: described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes

4. Financial and operational capacity and exclusion: described in Annex C of the Work Programme General Annexes

  • Award criteria, scoring and thresholds are described in Annex D of the Work Programme General Annexes

  • Submission and evaluation processes are described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes and the Online Manual

  • Indicative timeline for evaluation and grant agreement: described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes

The rules are described in General Annex G. Beneficiaries will be subject to the following additional obligations:

Proposals must include budgeted cooperation (including the necessary technical aspects) with the e-platform Embassy of Good Science[[ www.embassy.science]]. The output material of the action must be made available on this e-platform.

6. Legal and financial set-up of the grants: described in Annex G of the Work Programme General Annexes

 

Specific conditions

7. Specific conditions: described in the specific topic of the Work Programme

 

Support & Resources

Online Manual is your guide on the procedures from proposal submission to managing your grant.

Horizon Europe Programme Guide contains the detailed guidance to the structure, budget and political priorities of Horizon Europe.

Funding & Tenders Portal FAQ – find the answers to most frequently asked questions on submission of proposals, evaluation and grant management.

Research Enquiry Service – ask questions about any aspect of European research in general and the EU Research Framework Programmes in particular.

National Contact Points (NCPs) – get guidance, practical information and assistance on participation in Horizon Europe. There are also NCPs in many non-EU and non-associated countries (‘third-countries’).

Enterprise Europe Network – contact your EEN national contact for advice to businesses with special focus on SMEs. The support includes guidance on the EU research funding.

IT Helpdesk – contact the Funding & Tenders Portal IT helpdesk for questions such as forgotten passwords, access rights and roles, technical aspects of submission of proposals, etc.

European IPR Helpdesk assists you on intellectual property issues.

CEN-CENELEC Research Helpdesk and ETSI Research Helpdesk – the European Standards Organisations advise you how to tackle standardisation in your project proposal.  

The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their recruitment – consult the general principles and requirements specifying the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers, employers and funders of researchers.

Partner Search Services help you find a partner organisation for your proposal.

 

Latest Updates

Last Changed: July 10, 2024

HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01 

EVALUATION results

Published: 06.12.2023

Deadline: 12.03.2024

Available budget: EUR 23.50 million

Budget per topic with separate ‘call-budget-split’:

  HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-01 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-03 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-04
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) 5 7 24
Number of inadmissible proposals 0 0 0
Number of ineligible proposals 0 1 0
Number of above-threshold proposals 2 3 16
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals 4414847,5 2999350 8012579,95
Number of proposals retained for funding 2 1 1
Number of proposals in the reserve list 0 1 4
Funding threshold 13,5 14 14,5
Ranking distribution      
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 1 1 2
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 1 0 2
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 0 2 12
  HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-07 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-08 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-09
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) 8 4 4
Number of inadmissible proposals 0 0 1
Number of ineligible proposals 0 0 1
Number of above-threshold proposals 6 1 2
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals 11612997,5 2500308,75 4184229
Number of proposals retained for funding 1 1 1
Number of proposals in the reserve list 2 0 1
Funding threshold 14 14 13
Ranking distribution      
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 1 1 0
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 2 0 1
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 3 0 1
  HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-10 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-11 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-12
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) 1 22 18
Number of inadmissible proposals 0 0 1
Number of ineligible proposals 0 0 2
Number of above-threshold proposals 0 12 8
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals   11630578,5 23985487,5
Number of proposals retained for funding 0 3 1
Number of proposals in the reserve list 0 4 4
Funding threshold NA 13,5 15
Ranking distribution      
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 0 2 3
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 0 4 2
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 0 6 3

 

Summary of observer report:

The evaluation of the HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01 Call covered nine Topics and 93 submitted proposals. A total of 39 experts (evaluators), 12 dedicated rapporteurs and one independent observer were involved in the process, which was coordinated and managed by a very professional team of EC staff members (from REA).

The evaluation process was a complex task that extended throughout several weeks and required a strong coordination between all participants. This complexity led, however, to high quality results, i.e., funding decisions taken against clearly established criteria after comprehensive and well-organised discussions.

During the individual remote and central phases, experts behaved professionally, and discussions were fair and balanced. In general, experts did not allow consensus to be reached without due process and robust exchange of views. All proposals were assessed and treated in a similar way.

No specific issues were raised as regards to impartiality of the participants, and confidentiality aspects were clearly managed. 

The transparency of the procedures was evident throughout the process, and the throughput time was sufficient to adequately undertake the evaluation process.

The evaluation process fulfilled the high quality standards of the Horizon Europe evaluation procedures.

---------------------

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.

 

 

 

 

Last Changed: July 5, 2024

 HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01 

EVALUATION results

Published: 06.12.2023

Deadline: 12.03.2024

Available budget: EUR 23.50 million

Budget per topic with separate ‘call-budget-split’:

  HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01-12
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) 18
Number of inadmissible proposals 1
Number of ineligible proposals 2
Number of above-threshold proposals 8
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals 23985487,5
Number of proposals retained for funding 1
Number of proposals in the reserve list 4
Funding threshold 15
Ranking distribution  
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 3
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 2
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 3

 

Summary of observer report:

The evaluation of the HORIZON-WIDERA-2024-ERA-01 Call covered nine Topics and 93 submitted proposals. A total of 39 experts (evaluators), 12 dedicated rapporteurs and one independent observer were involved in the process, which was coordinated and managed by a very professional team of EC staff members (from REA).

The evaluation process was a complex task that extended throughout several weeks and required a strong coordination between all participants. This complexity led, however, to high quality results, i.e., funding decisions taken against clearly established criteria after comprehensive and well-organised discussions.

During the individual remote and central phases, experts behaved professionally, and discussions were fair and balanced. In general, experts did not allow consensus to be reached without due process and robust exchange of views. All proposals were assessed and treated in a similar way.

No specific issues were raised as regards to impartiality of the participants, and confidentiality aspects were clearly managed. 

The transparency of the procedures was evident throughout the process, and the throughput time was sufficient to adequately undertake the evaluation process.

The evaluation process fulfilled the high quality standards of the Horizon Europe evaluation procedures.

---------------------

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

 

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.

Next generation AI and Human Behaviour: promoting an ethical approach | Grantalist