ELS-X and Policy: Integration, Trust, and Authority

The first thematic cluster addressed the relationship between ELS-X and policy. Presentations by Mónika Nogel, Silvia Tessaro Trapani et al., and Dirk Hommrich et al. examined genetic testing for medical purposes, human oversight over AI systems in business practice, and ELSA assessment in relation to the medical device regulation. Together, these contributions highlighted a recurring challenge: although ethical, legal, and social analyses are increasingly required, their practical integration into policy and regulatory decision-making remains difficult. The subsequent fishbowl discussion focused on tensions between different forms of expertise. Legal analysis is often perceived as more authoritative and formally operationalizable, while ethical and social analyses tend to offer nuanced, contextual insights rather than clear-cut recommendations which technical experts are less readily able to act upon. Participants discussed how this asymmetry shapes expectations towards ELS-X and can limit its influence in policy contexts. 
A recurring theme was trust, both public trust in technologies and trust in ethical expertise itself. Participants debated whether a trust deficit exists towards ethicists and social scientists and how this might be addressed. Making ethical reasoning more transparent, clarifying its contribution beyond compliance, and embedding responsibility within institutional structures rather than delegating it solely to ethics committees were identified as possible strategies.

Institutional Embedding and Operationalisation of ELS-X

Two invited presentations by Mirjam Plantinga and Vincent Blok both addressed the question of how ELS-X can be institutionally embedded and operationalised within research and innovation contexts, with a particular focus on universities and ELSA Lab structures. Drawing on experiences from the Netherlands, Plantinga presented the Dutch ELSA Lab community as an example of a well-established and institutionally anchored ELS-X infrastructure. She illustrated how ELSA Labs enable sustained interdisciplinary and community collaboration across projects and organisational levels by embedding ethical, legal, and social reflection throughout research processes rather than treating it as a late-stage or project-specific add-on. This institutional anchoring was discussed as a key factor for ensuring continuity, visibility, and impact of ELS-X research within universities.

Blok focused in his presentation on the operationalisation of ELS-X, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence, and argued that the central challenge for ELS-X today lies less in justification than in implementation. He proposed a multi-level approach in which ethical, legal, and social reflection must be aligned across project-level practices, organisational routines, and broader innovation and policy environments. From this viewpoint, ELS-X requires not only methodological tools but also supportive governance structures, incentive systems, and long-term institutional commitment.

In the following discussion it was emphasised that the increasing societal relevance of emerging technologies demands a stronger and more systematic integration of ELS-X within universities and research organisations. Meaningful ELS-X practice depends on institutional conditions that allow ethical reflection to inform research agendas, innovation trajectories, real embedding in communities and interactions with external stakeholders while retaining critical independence.

ELS-X, Medical Research, and Bioethics: Participation and Its Limits

The second thematic cluster focused on ELS-X in medical research and bioethics. Presentations by Kirsten Brukamp, Hans Radder, and Isabelle Pirson et al. addressed stakeholder participation in health technology development, alternatives to patent-driven medical research, and typologies of embedded ethics approaches in biomedical contexts. The fishbowl discussion centred on whether stakeholder participation is an appropriate and sufficient strategy for ethical and social analysis. While participation is often treated as a normative ideal, participants raised several critical questions: Who counts as a stakeholder, and who remains excluded? How are power asymmetries addressed? And how can participatory processes avoid becoming tokenistic or extractive? Concerns about participation fatigue were raised, particularly when the same groups are repeatedly consulted without clear effects on decision-making. Participants also discussed compensation, recognition, and authorship, pointing to ambiguities regarding the role and status of participants in ethical analysis. More broadly, the discussion highlighted that participation should not be regarded as a universal solution. Many affected individuals and groups remain invisible, and participatory approaches may fail to address broader societal interests. This led to renewed calls for engaging more explicitly with notions of the common good.

Methods of Integration and Ethical Expertise

In her method talk Anja Pichl addressed the challenge of integrating ethics more deeply into science and technology development. The discussion emphasised that integration should not be limited to early involvement or advisory roles, but should also shape how research problems are framed and prioritised. This perspective challenged the assumption that ELS-X primarily answers the question of what is ethical to do. Participants argued for asking as well what is unethical not to do, particularly in contexts where inaction perpetuates harm or injustice. Ethical reflection was framed as a shared responsibility distributed across research teams and institutions rather than as a burdensome external task. Discussions of expertise further highlighted that ELS-X requires more than moral judgement alone. Analytical competence, social scientific insight, and technoscientific understanding were seen as equally important. Participants rejected the idea that only ethicists can do ethics, while emphasising the need for specialised training and reflexive competence in interdisciplinary contexts.

ELS-X and Emerging Technologies: Conflict, Context, and Innovation

The third thematic cluster addressed ELS-X and emerging technologies. Contributions by Felix Gnisa et al. and Nora Schönherr et al. examined robotics in kindergartens and Ethical Vision Design in early innovation phases. These cases illustrated how ethical, legal, and social issues often arise from conflicting values embedded in concrete practices rather than abstract principles. The fishbowl discussion explored how ELS-X can shape innovation meaningfully without falling into solutionism. Participants emphasised that many value conflicts are not harmonizable and that ethical frameworks should acknowledge rather than obscure these tensions. Rather than offering definitive solutions, ELS-X was seen as playing a crucial role in making conflicts visible, contextualising values, and questioning dominant innovation narratives.

Reflecting on ELS-X: Progress and Non-Ideal Contexts

Further meta-level reflection was provided by method and invited presentations from Lorina Buhr as well as Bruno Gransche, who addressed the gap between ambition and application in ELS-X and related approaches such as Responsible Research and Innovation. These contributions reinforced the importance of non-ideal, context-sensitive analysis and problem-oriented rather than technology-driven ELS-X research. Here, participants discussed different notions of progress - economic, political, and moral - and questioned how ELS-X can build cumulatively on previous work while remaining responsive to changing institutional and societal conditions.

Towards a European ELS-X Research Community

The concluding discussion focused on future collaboration and community-building. Participants expressed strong interest in strengthening European networks, sharing methodological experiences, and creating platforms for sustained exchange. Proposed formats included special issues, edited volumes, follow-up workshops, and special interest groups within existing organisations. A shared conclusion of the workshop was that the increasing societal relevance of emerging technologies, combined with growing expectations of responsible research and innovation, requires a stronger institutional embedding of ELS-X within universities and research organisations. ELS-X cannot fulfil its critical and integrative role if it remains confined to short-term projects or narrowly defined compliance tasks.

The main takeaway were many shared questions and future avenues for collaborative research. While practical challenges around ELS-X remain, it holds great potential to contribute to innovation processes.