STS TUM @ EU-SPRI 2026!

STS TUM made a strong showing at EU‑SPRI 2026 with several conference contributions and presentations. Among them, Dr. Cindy Rentrop, Jasmin Stein, Dr. Georgia Samaras, and Mary Allison Jones. 

In her presentation “AI Beyond the Disruption Myth: A Comparison between Two German SME Regions,” Cindy challenged one of the most influential assumptions in contemporary AI debates: that artificial intelligence is inherently disruptive. She drew on qualitative interviews in two Mittelstand-dominated regions to show that AI often unfolds very differently from dominant narratives. Rather than disrupting existing structures, AI is frequently integrated into established organizational routines, institutional arrangements, and regional innovation cultures. New technologies are assessed against long-term strategies, trusted practices, and existing expertise, making continuity a central condition of innovation rather than its opposite.

The presentation also highlighted a visibility paradox. While AI policy and public discourse tend to celebrate highly visible forms of innovation—breakthroughs, flagship projects, and technological frontrunners—SME regions tend to pursue AI through quieter processes of experimentation, competence-building, and gradual implementation. As a result, these innovation trajectories often remain overlooked within disruption-oriented frameworks.

By shifting attention to these less visible regional contexts, Cindy’s research invites a more plural understanding of AI and innovation. Rather than asking how regions can catch up with an imagined AI frontier, it highlights how different innovation cultures shape the ways AI is adopted, governed, and made meaningful. In SME regions, continuity is often not seen as a barrier to innovation—it is one of its defining modes.

In her presentation “How Mission-Orientation Can Reinforce Hype in Speculative Upstream Research and Innovation,” Jasmin examined how mission orientation in innovation policy functions when applied to deeply speculative research domains rather than well-circumscribed societal challenges. By comparing three quantum computing clusters with different policy architectures and varying degrees of mission orientation, Jasmin’s research highlights the need for institutional structures that enable critical assessment independent of the vanguards who shape a mission’s constitutive vision. It also points to the importance of reflexive governance mechanisms that allow recalibration when scientific developments diverge from a mission’s expectations.

Mary Allison Jones, M.A., and Dr. Georgia Samaras presented their findings on the academic discourse in Germany concerning the long-term health effects of early-life adversity. Building on previous research from the Chair of Science and Technology Policy on both international academic and media discourse in this area, their work demonstrates how early-life adversity is constructed as “getting under the skin” through epigenetic mechanisms.

Epigenetics—broadly understood as the study of how extracorporeal experiences influence the interpretation of genetic code—provides a promising theoretical framework for examining the social and environmental determinants of long-term health while challenging genetic determinism. As part of their project within the ForFamily consortium, Mary and Georgia interviewed 12 experts in the field and compiled a sample of 144 peer-reviewed articles.

Drawing on Rainer Keller’s sociology of knowledge approach to discourse and employing grounded theory methodology, they shared preliminary insights into how responsibility for health is constructed within the German academic discourse on early-life adversity. Their analysis revealed tensions between moral and social responsibility. While epigenetics seeks to promote more socially responsible research, it nevertheless continues to assign moral responsibility to individuals, particularly survivors and mothers.

Their research also uncovered structural divisions within the scientific discourse, including distinctions between exposure-focused and mechanism-focused research, which may be linked to funding constraints. Furthermore, they highlighted the persistence of mind–body dualism and a strong concentration on psychopathology, both of which can contribute to the stigmatization of survivors of adversity and individuals living with mental health conditions.

To better align moral and social responsibility in research on early-life adversity, they call for greater critical reflection on representation and determinism, the political influence of research funding and knowledge translation, and the development of multi- and interdisciplinary approaches that acknowledge the multiplicity of mechanisms shaping the relationship between early-life adversity and long-term health.