how can local decisions about global issues in science and technology have impact? if we value and document that which has impacted us - as well as listening to those whose documentation and value has not yet been acknowledged? Acknowledge unintended impacts? Share stories and document evidence of change?

1. “We acknowledge and celebrate the
First Australians on whose traditional
lands we meet, and pay our respects
to the elders of the Ngunnawal people
past and present”
“100% of ANU public events begin with either a welcome to country or acknowledgement of
traditional owners.”
Target reported as achieved according to:
http://www.anu.edu.au/about/strategic-priorities/reconciliation-action-plan

2. ...some participants reported a lower awareness of the topic
after the forum than before. Based on their other responses,
we interpret this to reflect an appreciation that the topic was
far more complex than they had first thought.
This led to discomfort for some participants, which, like
ambivalence, may be a valuable resource in opening up these
conversations.
Russell, A.W. (2013) ‘Improving Legitimacy in Nanotechnology Policy Development through Stakeholder and Community
Engagement: Forging New Pathways’, Review of Policy Research 30(5): 566–87.
Quoted in:
Marks, N. J., & Russell, A. W. (2015). Public engagement in biosciences and biotechnologies: Reflections on the role of
sociology and STS. Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 97-115.

3. Inspiring Australia—a national strategy for engagement with the sciences

4. right to “share in scientific advancement
and its benefits”
Article 27.2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
right "to enjoy the benefits of scientific
progress and its applications"
Article 15.1.b, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

24. http://riaus.org.au/events/synthetic-biology%E2%80%94what-does-it-mean-for-you/

25. http://riaus.org.au/events/synthetic-biology%E2%80%94what-does-it-mean-for-you/

26. http://riaus.org.au/events/synthetic-biology%E2%80%94what-does-it-mean-for-you/

27. http://riaus.org.au/events/synthetic-biology%E2%80%94what-does-it-mean-for-you/

28. 77 voting participants chose their top three policy priorities from a list generated from group deliberations.
Issues ranked according to percentage (in parentheses) of voters who placed issue among top three concerns:
1. Who should be the primary decision makers about synthetic biology policy? (68%)
2. Ethical frameworks for and issues relating to safety and control (59%)
3. Transparency and monitoring of technologies (50%)
4. Need for education and public understanding of synthetic biology (38%)
5. Risk/benefit analyses (26%)
6. Practicality of regulations recognizing potentials, certainties, and boundaries (23%)
7. Concerns about benefits from commercialization and IP laws (14%)
8. Need for a systemic/holistic view (13%)
9. Funding mechanisms (public versus private returns) (10%)

29. p2, AAAS
Science and Human Rights Coalition,
“Defining the Right to Enjoy the Benefits
of Scientific Progress
and Its Applications:
American Scientists’ Perspectives”
(Report prepared by Margaret Weigers Vitullo
and Jessica Wyndham),
October 2013.
DOI: 10.1126/srhrl.aaa0028

30. 77 voting participants chose their top three policy priorities from a list generated from group deliberations.
Issues ranked according to percentage (in parentheses) of voters who placed issue among top three concerns:
1. Who should be the primary decision makers about synthetic biology policy? (68%)
2. Ethical frameworks for and issues relating to safety and control (59%)
3. Transparency and monitoring of technologies (50%)
4. Need for education and public understanding of synthetic biology (38%)
5. Risk/benefit analyses (26%)
6. Practicality of regulations recognizing potentials, certainties, and boundaries (23%)
7. Concerns about benefits from commercialization and IP laws (14%)
8. Need for a systemic/holistic view (13%)
9. Funding mechanisms (public versus private returns) (10%)

33. 77 voting participants chose their top three policy priorities from a list generated from group deliberations.
Issues ranked according to percentage (in parentheses) of voters who placed issue among top three concerns:
1. Who should be the primary decision makers about synthetic biology policy? (68%)
2. Ethical frameworks for and issues relating to safety and control (59%)
3. Transparency and monitoring of technologies (50%)
4. Need for education and public understanding of synthetic biology (38%)
5. Risk/benefit analyses (26%)
6. Practicality of regulations recognizing potentials, certainties, and boundaries (23%)
7. Concerns about benefits from commercialization and IP laws (14%)
8. Need for a systemic/holistic view (13%)
9. Funding mechanisms (public versus private returns) (10%)

35. 77 voting participants chose their top three policy priorities from a list generated from group deliberations.
Issues ranked according to percentage (in parentheses) of voters who placed issue among top three concerns:
1. Who should be the primary decision makers about synthetic biology policy? (68%)
2. Ethical frameworks for and issues relating to safety and control (59%)
3. Transparency and monitoring of technologies (50%)
4. Need for education and public understanding of synthetic biology (38%)
5. Risk/benefit analyses (26%)
6. Practicality of regulations recognizing potentials, certainties, and boundaries (23%)
7. Concerns about benefits from commercialization and IP laws (14%)
8. Need for a systemic/holistic view (13%)
9. Funding mechanisms (public versus private returns) (10%)

37. I’m amongst those who think that everyday people can – and should
– contribute to science policy. Ostrom showed that local communities
are better placed to decide how to use shared resources than
governments or companies. Similarly, local communities are well
placed to decide how to use our discoveries in science. It’s the job of
scientists to discover things – but the context and application of those
discoveries should be decided by society.
The question is which society? Community participation is well
established in issues with clear boundaries, such as the provision of
local health services, or placement of wind farms. However the
pervasive impact of emerging technologies like synthetic biology or
nanotechnology makes it hard for public engagement specialists to
decide who should participate in making decisions.
In a globalized world, everyone should be able to participate. But the
reality is that a tiny percentage of people will have the opportunity.
How can we scale up Ostrom’s work on local communities to issues
without boundaries?

40. how can local decisions about global issues in
science and technology have impact?
if we value and document that which
has impacted us - as well as listening to
those whose documentation and
value has not yet been acknowledged?
Acknowledge unintended impacts?
Share stories and document evidence of change?

43. 2008
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/Policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx
National Innovation Priority 4:
More effective dissemination of new technologies, processes,
and ideas increases innovation across the economy
2009
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovation/policy/pages/PoweringIdeas.aspx
Now?
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/InspiringAustralia
A national strategy for engagement with the sciences

46. This way of conceptualising young people’s political
understanding and practice makes a particular assumption:
that is, it is good for citizens to know more about Australia’s
formal system of government and that this knowledge would
probably be a counter to young citizens’ feelings of apathy,
cynicism and so on... there is the assumption that if
individuals are provided with more information then they are
then guaranteed to become more enthusiastic about politics
and will want to participate and become ‘good’, ‘active’
citizens.
from page 81 in Vromen, A. (2003). 'People Try to Put Us Down…': Participatory Citizenship of 'Generation X'.
Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 79-99.

49. cobismith.github.io/forestlaws