A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms "risk" and "hazard." The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four-fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders' perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has recently emerged as a new framework for science and technology governance. The concept articulates the need for mutual exchange by which societal actors become responsive to each other early on in the process of innovation, with a view to facilitate ethically acceptable and sustainable innovation. There is relatively limited evidence to explore the extent to which the process of research and innovation under the terms of RRI is realised in practice, particularly in the context of food and health research. Although research to date has been examining innovation from the point of view of inputs and outputs—R&D funding and patents—we propose to examine the cognitive framing of innovation that shapes decisions of those who constitute a part of the innovation chain.\ud This paper explores how the concept of innovation is understood and used in policy implementation, with a particular focus upon ‘food and health’ science and research policy and funding. Our analysis is based on 55 interviews of various actors engaged in research funding decision-making across eight European countries. Three themes emerged from the analysis: concept of innovation; conditions for innovation; and drivers of innovation; through these themes, the cognitive framing was drawn out. The cognitive framing suggests that innovation in the food and health domain is perceived to be focused on biosciences and marketable applications to the neglect of social sciences and broader public interest; that the ‘‘innovation network” is primarily viewed as centred around scientific/technical and industrial actors; and that the demand-pull dynamic is relevant to innovation in the area of food and health, despite having been relegated in contemporary thinking and policies around innovation. These findings point to the inadequate consideration of the normative issues — how problems are to be defined and addressed — among national research funders in the food and health domain, and indicate a gap between the ideas of innovation under the terms of RRI and innovation as conceptualised by those involved in its\ud governance

In silico models have prompted considerable interest and debate because of their potential value in predicting the properties of chemical substances for regulatory purposes. The European REACH legislation promotes innovation and encourages the use of alternative methods, but in practice the use of in silico models is still very limited. There are many stakeholders influencing the regulatory trajectory of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) models, including regulators, industry, model developers and consultants. Here we outline some of the issues and challenges involved in the acceptance of these methods for regulatory purposes.

This paper reports on the research of mental models of uncertainties management in an emergency situation which was carried out in the framework of the European CONFIDENCE (COping with uNcertainties For Improved modelling and DEcision making in Nuclear emergenCiEs) Project. The methodology included the mapping of mental models among several emergency preparedness and response experts and then performing interviews based on structured protocol with lay people in five countries: Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. The aim of these investigations was to trace the concepts and understandings of emergency preparedness and response and to identify possible gaps between experts and lay people. The article presents the main results of this research and suggestions for the improvement of EP & R planning.

Within the European project CONFIDENCE, an extensive research programme has been conducted on a range of different tools, including Apps, SMS, numerical, narrative or mixed news messages and videos linked to uncertainty communication following potential nuclear or radiological emergencies. For this purpose, qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied in different European countries. Based on the results of these studies, we have formulated guidelines for efficient and effective communication about uncertainties that can be used in nuclear or radiological emergencies.