Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies

Engagement with stakeholders and civil society is increasingly important for new scientific and technological developments. Preparation of such engagements sets the stage for engagement activities and thus contributes to their outcomes. Preparation is a demanding task, particularly if the facilitating agent aims for timely engagement related to emerging technologies. Requirements for such preparation include understanding of the emerging science & technology and its dynamics. Multi-level analysis and socio-technical scenarios are two complementary tools for constructing productive engagement. Examination of the emergence of nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector demonstrates how these tools work. In light of recent policy demands for responsible innovation, but also more generally, the role of organizers of engagement activities is one that deserves reflection insofar as it can extend beyond that of preparation and facilitation.     

A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists’ and Science Policymakers’ Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies

In recent years, in the UK and elsewhere, scientists and science policymakers have grappled with the question of how to reap the benefits of nanotechnologies while minimising the risks. Having recognised the importance of public support for future innovations, they have placed increasing emphasis on ‘engaging’ ‘the public’ during the early phase of technology development. Meaningful engagement suggests some common ground between experts and lay publics in relation to the definition of nanotechnologies and of their benefits and risks. However, views on nanotechnologies are likely to vary according to where actors stand in the technology production/consumption/assessment cycle. Drawing on data from a recent UK-based study, this article examines how scientists (‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’) and policymakers portray the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies, particularly as they relate to two major areas of predicted application, namely medicine/public health and environmental sustainability. The findings reveal that, in the main, scientists and science policymakers held a positive conception of nanotechnologies and see imminent applications, although they acknowledged particular risks, including adverse public reaction. While definitions of ‘benefit’ and ‘risk’ varied, most saw the benefits as outweighing the risks and believed that the risks could be adequately regulated once they were assessed. The difficulties of assessing risk, however, were acknowledged. The study raises a number of questions that will need to be addressed if regulations are to be developed that not only protect people’s heath and wellbeing and the environment but also engender public trust in nanotechnologies.

Engaging Narratives and the Limits of Lay Ethics: Introduction

How can one discover the ethical issues associated with nanotechnologies? One heuristic is to tend closely to the ethical reflections of lay publics and the ways in which these are informed by experience with technological innovation, technology governance, and the (broken) promises of visionary science and technology. A close collaboration between social scientists and philosophers took this heuristic to its limits: On the one hand, it achieved remarkably fine–grained insights into public reflection about nanotechnologies. On the other hand, a philosophical analysis of these reflections makes apparent that there is a profound disconnect between the lay ethics rooted in public talk and the ethical and normative commitments that are embedded in nanotechnological research programs and practices. Accordingly, critical engagement with the ways in which ordinary people try to make sense of nanotechnologies constitutes a novel heuristic for the discovery of ethical issues. This introduction and the subsequent four papers show this heuristic at work.     

Deliberating Risks Under Uncertainty: Experience, Trust, and Attitudes in a Swiss Nanotechnology Stakeholder Discussion Group

Scientific knowledge has not stabilized in the current, early, phase of research and development of nanotechnologies creating a challenge to ‘upstream’ public engagement. Nevertheless, the idea that the public should be involved in deliberative discussions and assessments of emerging technologies at this early stage is widely shared among governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. Many forums for public debate including focus groups, and citizen juries, have thus been organized to explore public opinions on nanotechnologies in a variety of countries over the past few years. In Switzerland the Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-Swiss) organized such a citizen panel in fall 2006. Drawing from an ethnographic study of this panel called ‘publifocus on nanotechnologies, health, and environment’ this paper looks at the ways members of a stakeholder group deal with the epistemic uncertainty in their deliberation of nanotechnologies. By exploring the statements of the participants in the stakeholder discussion group, this paper reconstructs the narratives that constitute the epistemic foundations of the participants’ evaluations of nanotechnologies.

The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science

Timely public engagement in science presents a broad challenge. It includes more than research into the ethical, legal and social dimensions of science and state-initiated citizen’s participation. Introducing a public perspective on science while safeguarding its public value involves a diverse set of actors: natural scientists and engineers, technology assessment institutes, policy makers, social scientists, citizens, interest organisations, artists, and last, but not least, politicians.     

Needs, Wants and Goals: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Public Policy

This paper considers the possible contribution of Quality of Life methods in international development policy and practice. It discusses the role of theories of human needs in how public policy makers and implementors might distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’. There is a good case for extending theories of human need to encompass social and psychological needs, but when we do so the ability of theory to distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ begins to evaporate. Rather, by virtue of the core relationship between needs denial and harm, it is argued that a theory of human need can provide a framework for reasoning about what constitute needs. Empirical quality of life data can then assist policy makers to identify what constitute needs satisfiers in particular societal and cultural contexts. They also can provide important information to enable processes of public reasoning about the relative societal importance of different needs claims. The paper uses data generated through the application of two Quality of Life methods in Southern and Northeast Thailand, which were employed as part of a comprehensive study of the social and cultural construction of wellbeing in developing countries, to illustrate its arguments. The paper concludes that if routinely incorporated into local policy process, such quality of life methods have a possible contribution to make to effective democratic governance for development.     

Lab Work Goes Social,and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes

Midstream modulation is a form of public engagement with science which benefits from strategic application of science and technology studies (STS) insights accumulated over nearly 20 years. These have been developed from STS researchers’ involvement in practical engagement processes and research with scientists, science funders, policy and other public stakeholders. The strategic aim of this specific method, to develop what is termed second-order reflexivity amongst scientist-technologists, builds upon and advances earlier more general STS work. However this method is focused and structured so as to help generate such reflexivity—over the ‘upstream’ questions which have been identified in other STS research as important public issues for scientific research, development and innovation—amongst practising scientists-technologists in their specialist contexts (public or private, in principle). This is a different focus from virtually all such previous work, and offers novel opportunities for those key broader issues to be opened up. The further development of these promising results depends on some important conditions such as identifying and engaging research funders and other stakeholders like affected publics in similar exercises. Implementing these conditions could connect the productive impacts of midstream modulation with wider public engagement work, including with ‘uninvited’ public engagement with science. It would also generate broader institutional and political changes in the larger networks of institutional actors which constitute contemporary technoscientific innovation and governance processes. All of these various broader dimensions, far beyond the laboratory alone, need to be appropriately open, committed to democratic needs, and reflexive, for the aims of midstream modulation to be achieved, whilst allowing specialists to work as specialists.     

Systems change as an outcome and a process in the work of community collaboratives for health

The widespread development of comprehensive community initiatives that aim to improve community health is driven by the need to change the systems charged with delivering the services and creating the policies related to a variety of health outcomes. Georgia's Family Connection initiative is the nation's largest statewide network of community collaboratives for health, with collaboratives operating in 159 counties. Data on community context, collaborative processes, engagement in systems change, and changes in programs and activities implemented, gathered consistently at the collaborative level over 3 years, will be used to answer the following questions. How do community contexts and the structure and processes of collaboratives affect implementation of systems change? How do systems changes affect intermediate outcomes such as the type of programs offered in a community? Longitudinal change in systems change and program implementation is described and significant predictors of between‐collaborative variation in longitudinal change for each outcome are identified.     

Peaceful waters: Community action in sustainable scarce resource management in a rural Zimbabwean setting

I explored community collation approaches to sustainable water management by a rural Zimbabwean community for social justice and equity with inclusivity. Informants were a convenience sample of 27 community dwellers; including villagers (n = 20), community leaders (n = 2), and policy makers (n = 5). They responded to semi-structured interviews regarding their engagement in community action for sustainable water resource management. Thematic analysis of the data yielded themes to suggest diversity in stakeholder interest, the importance of collective community participation, and attending to group cohesion processes. Regular community dwellers appeared to value local oversight and control of the water resource management; while policy makers were more invested in water resource management institution building than the mundane water resource management issues. Sustainable water resource management in rural settings is likely with identifying and bridging any gaps between local user interests and institutional policy interests.     

Emergency Research and Consent: Keeping the Exception from Undermining the Rule

Contemporary bioethics has been somewhat skewed by its focus on high-tech medicine and the resulting development of ethical frameworks based on an acute-care model of healthcare. Research and scholarship in bioethics have payed only cursory attention to ethical issues related to disability. I argue that bioethics should concern itself with the full range of theoretical and practical issues related to disability. This encounter with the disability community will enrich bioethics and, potentially, society as well. I suggest a number of items that the bioethics agenda should include, such as the development of a casuistry of the right to healthcare and to community integration and an advocacy role in fostering an understanding among the public and policy makers of the need to reform research and treatment related to disability.     

Risk Orientation,Risk Exposure,and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade

This research offers a general framework for thinking about how individual disposition towards risk influences public policy opinions. Affinity for or aversion to risk is, in part, a stable personality characteristic that interacts with risk and reward messages in complex policy debates. We examine the implications of this for public opinions about free trade with extensions to immigration policy. We argue and find that opinions about policy depend jointly upon one's exposure to potential gains or losses and one's risk orientation. The findings have implications for crafting and framing public policies because they highlight how individual characteristics are likely to shape the public response to policy proposals. Our findings suggest that there may be limits, in the aggregate, to the degree to which elites can alter the level of support for policies through framing or through offering risk‐mitigating policy provisions.     

Disability: an agenda for bioethics

Contemporary bioethics has been somewhat skewed by its focus on high-tech medicine and the resulting development of ethical frameworks based on an acute-care model of healthcare. Research and scholarship in bioethics have payed only cursory attention to ethical issues related to disability. I argue that bioethics should concern itself with the full range of theoretical and practical issues related to disability. This encounter with the disability community will enrich bioethics and, potentially, society as well. I suggest a number of items that the bioethics agenda should include, such as the development of a casuistry of the right to healthcare and to community integration and an advocacy role in fostering an understanding among the public and policy makers of the need to reform research and treatment related to disability.     

公共政策情境中行为习惯的形成机制与培养策略

引导社会成员重塑日常良好行为习惯是增强公共政策有效性的重要路径和切入点, 洞悉并把握行为习惯的形成机制对具体培养策略的制定和实施大有裨益。行为习惯是指通过高频重复的奖励习得, 在记忆中形成的情境与反应之间的内隐联结。作为一种特殊的内隐记忆系统, 行为习惯具有自动化、情境线索依赖性、对当前奖励低敏感性等特征。行为习惯的形成机制包含两个独立且共发的习得机制, 即联结习得机制和奖励习得机制。在日常良好行为习惯的形成初期, 目标引导着个体对行为价值的习得。在培养社会成员日常良好行为习惯的过程中, 应将情境线索的稳定性、高频行为的低认知重复以及奖励的合理设置, 作为公共政策助推社会成员养成日常良好行为习惯的三大核心策略。未来的研究方向应着力于加强习惯研究的学科视阈融合, 更新行为习惯领域的研究范式, 重置公共设施以提升有益行为的易达性, 以及引入商业模式以共促社会成员日常良好行为习惯的重塑。     

公共政策制定程序对政策可接受性的影响

根据程序公正理论提出公共政策制定程序与公众对政策的可接受性的关系问题。研究一通过访谈不同领域的学者,初步揭示了公共政策及其制定程序存在的问题——对公共问题不敏感,解决问题的措施成效低。研究二用问卷调查公众对一个制定中的公共政策的态度,恰与政策制定者的愿望相反,公众并不认可政府解决问题的设想,也不认同政府举行的听证会的结果。研究三设计了一个非等组前后测准实验,在两个互联网站的电子公告板上比较根据不同的公共政策制定程序的政策的可接受性。结果证明,制定政策时了解公众态度可增强政策的针对性,提高解决问题措施的成效和可接受性     

Technology, Methodology and Intervention: Performing Nanoethics in Portugal

During the last few decades we have witnessed a proliferation of exercises dealing with the public participation of citizens in various different dimensions of their societies, including issues of science and technology. On the one hand, these mechanisms provide more robust forms of public engagement with matters that were traditionally dealt with by experts; on the other hand, they raise concerns relating to their design, efficiency or potential for the empowerment of citizens. As part of the EC-funded project DEEPEN (Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies) a research team in Coimbra, Portugal, was put in charge of identifying the ethical and social “impacts” of emerging nanotechnologies, transforming the traditional focus groups through the incorporation of two methodological innovations: the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and the Theatre of the Oppressed. This article reflects on the outcomes and complexities of the introduction of these two methodologies. Since the participants had little or no information on nanotechnologies, we reflect on the politics of these focus groups by exploring how issues of intervention, subjectivity, representation and agency were interconnected during this exercise of public participation in Science and Technology, analyzing the role of social sciences in developing nanoethics.     

Slim Futures and the Fat Pill: Civic Imaginations of Innovation and Governance in an Engagement Setting

Innovation politics is seen as an ever more central area of public policy, and as a key means for shaping societal futures. Particularly in Europe, with its history of controversial public debates about innovations, the idea that scientific progress is automatically equated with societal progress seems hard to sustain. Broader public participation within techno-scientific governance seems necessary; though who is to participate in which form often remains unclear. Increasingly, when the innovation process is discussed in both policy and academia, the question of when public engagement should take place in the innovation process is addressed using common models such as ‘upstream engagement’. However, these discussions about public engagement often assume a top-down approach, and pay little attention to citizens' perspectives. To address this gap in the literature, this article will ask the following questions: what tacit understandings of techno-scientific innovation and governance do citizens have; and how do they relate their understandings of the form, structure and dynamics of these innovation processes to their visions of governance and participation? How do specific cultural forms of conceptualising innovation open up or close down particular possibilities of governance and public participation, hence privileging the involvement of certain actors and not others? To address these questions, we analyse the discussions in a long-term public engagement setting involving both genome scientists and citizens in Austria.     

Scientific Research and the Public Trust

This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations.     

Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies

Despite the amount of public investment in nanotechnology ventures in the developed world, research shows that there is little public awareness about nanotechnology, and public knowledge is very limited. This is concerning given that nanotechnology has been heralded as 'revolutionising' the way we live. In this paper, we articulate why public engagement in debates about nanotechnology is important, drawing on literature on public engagement and science policy debate and deliberation about public policy development. We also explore the significance of timing in engaging the public, and we make some suggestions concerning how to effectively engage publics. Our conclusions indicate the significance of scientific researchers, policy makers and representative consumer groupings in public reasoning towards a better public policy framework for debate about technological development.     

Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the Challenge of Emerging Technologies

This paper reviews the location of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approaches within the access and benefit sharing (ABS) policy spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol. We describe how a range of dialogues on ethical research practices found a home, almost inadvertently, within the ABS policy process. However, more recent RRI dialogues around emerging technologies have not been similarly absorbed into ABS policy, due in part to the original framing of ABS and associated definitional and scope issues. Consideration is given to the challenges posed to these policy processes by the transformative and rapid nature of scientific and technological change today, including the emerging field of synthetic biology. Drawing on experiences from regulating ABS, we emphasize that the integration of RRI into policies for new, emerging, or poorly understood activities such as synthetic biology faces deficiencies such as limits to government capacity, jurisdictional confusion, shortages in funds, and an absence of strategic approaches. We conclude that a coordinated combination of diverse policy processes within the CBD might provide an invaluable space for RRI dialogues on social justice, sustainability, biosafety, and other issues raised by emerging technologies.