Jason Delborne - Emerging Technologies and Public Engagement
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•219 views
Biotech Communications Workshop for Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Triangle biotech professionals Presented by Jason Delborne, GES Center, NC State University, jadelbor@ncsu.edu Monday, 10/2/2017 (day 1)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Jason Delborne - Emerging Technologies and Public Engagement
Similar to Jason Delborne - Emerging Technologies and Public Engagement (20)
More from Genetic Engineering & Society Center
More from Genetic Engineering & Society Center (17)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Jason Delborne - Emerging Technologies and Public Engagement
- 1. Emerging Technologies and Public Engagement Jason Delborne, Ph.D. (jason_delborne@ncsu.edu) Associate Professor of Science, Policy, and Society Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources Genetic Engineering and Society Center North Carolina State University US-China Agricultural Biotechnology Safety Administration Collaboration Workshop: “Communication, Engagement, and Biotechnology” James B. Hunt Jr. Library | Raleigh, NC | 2 October 2017
- 2. The Vineyard Gazette July 27, 2016 2
- 4. Accessing “public values” to inform risk assessments and decision making
- 5. The Public? Audiences?Publics? Delborne, J. A. (2011). Constructing Audiences in Scientific Controversy. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 67–95.
- 6. Constructing “the Public” Survey mailed in July 2015 to all households in the identified Key West, Florida neighborhood where a GM mosquito trial has been proposed “The ASK phone survey was conducted August 18-22, 2016 among a total of 1,472 U.S. adults, including an oversample of 509 Florida respondents.” Online survey, February 2016
- 7. Public Engagement Type of Engagement Information Flow Public Communication Sponsor Public Representative Public Consultation Sponsor Public Representative Public Participation Sponsor Public Representative Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), p. 255.
- 8. • Share an experience you have had with “public engagement” • What was the purpose? • What was the outcome?
- 9. Released June 2016 nas-sites.org/gene-drives 9 • PDF of the full report • Report in Brief • Webinars with experts • Archived webcast of public release at NAS • Slide presentation
- 10. Defining Engagement Communities Groups of people who live in or near candidate release sites for gene drive organisms Stakeholders People with direct professional or personal interests in gene drives Publics Groups of people who contribute to democratic decision-making, but may lack direct connection to gene drives “Seeking and facilitating the sharing and exchange of knowledge, perspectives, and preferences between or among groups who often have differences in expertise, power, and values” (NASEM, 2016)
- 11. • Local knowledge • Principles of justice – Transparency – Informed consent • Opportunities for mutual learning – Scenario development – Reflective deliberation • Building of trust (NASEM, 2016) 11 Motivations for Engagement Keymind.com.br Globoforce.com Dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp udsu-strath.com
- 12. • Public engagement cannot be an afterthought. • The outcomes of engagement may be as crucial as the scientific outcomes to decisions about whether to release a gene-drive modified organism into the environment. Recommendation: Governing authorities, including research institutions, funders, and regulators, should develop and maintain clear policies and mechanisms for how public engagement will factor into research, ecological risk assessments, and public policy decisions about gene drives. (NASEM, 2016) Farooque, M. (ecastnetwork.org)
- 13. • Who should be engaged? • What are the goals of engagement? • When should engagement occur? • How can cultural differences among those involved in engagement be recognized and respected in ways that enhance deliberation? • What are potential triggers for polarization? • How should the results of engagement feed into practical and formal decision making about research and technological deployment? (NASEM, 2016) Challenges of Engagement ECAST Network
- 14. • Developed by the Danish Board of Technology • Interaction of lay persons and experts • Integration of facts and values • Goals – Promote learning through deliberation – Access thoughtful public opinion – Generate new ideas or policy alternatives – Impact governance decisions Consensus Conferences
- 15. CNS-ASU research, education and outreach activities are supported by the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement #0531194. March 2008 Tempe, Arizona Madison, Wisconsin Atlanta, Georgia Boulder, Colorado Durham, New Hampshire Berkeley, California
- 16. World Wide Views on Global Warming FROM THE WORLD’S CITIZENS TO THE CLIMATE POLICY-MAKERS
- 19. Framing the task and questions
- 22. blog.taitradio.com Embed in existing decision networks
- 24. • Anderson, A. A., Delborne, J., & Kleinman, D. L. (2013). Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 955–970. • Delborne, J., Schneider, J., Bal, R., Cozzens, S., & Worthington, R. (2013). Policy pathways, policy networks, and citizen deliberation: Disseminating the results of World Wide Views on Global Warming in the USA. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 378–392. • Schneider, J., & Delborne, J. (2012). Seeking the Spotlight: World Wide Views and the U.S. Media Context. In M. Rask, R. Worthington, & M. Lammi (Eds.), Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance (pp. 241–60). London: Earthscan Publications. • Delborne, J. A. (2011). Constructing Audiences in Scientific Controversy. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 67–95. • Delborne, J. A., Anderson, A. A., Kleinman, D. L., Colin, M., & Powell, M. (2011). Virtual Deliberation? Prospects and Challenges for Integrating the Internet in Consensus Conferences. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 367–84. • Kleinman, D., Delborne, J., & Anderson, A. (2011). Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 221–40. • Powell, M., Colin, M., Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J., & Anderson, A. (2011). Imagining Ordinary Citizens? Conceptualized and Actual Participants for Deliberations on Emerging Technologies. Science as Culture, 20(1), 37–70. • Powell, M., Delborne, J., & Colin, M. (2011). Beyond Engagement Exercises: Exploring the U.S. National Citizens’ Technology Forum from the Bottom-Up. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1), Article 4, 47 pages.
- 25. An engagement model American Chestnut Foundation Photo credit: Caroline Leitschuh SUNY-ESF
- 26. 1. Landscape Analysis • What values and interests are at stake? • Which sectors are contributing to (or controlling) public debate? • What stakeholders have joined the conversation, and what are their arguments? • Are there “silent stakeholders”? • What governance structures are active?
- 27. 2. Stakeholder Engagement • Reflect a diversity of perspectives and expertise. • Embrace and respect vulnerability. • Enable learning by and from technology developers. • Focus deliberation on design choices for community and public engagement (not making decisions about technological governance). • Develop case studies and scenarios.
- 28. 3. Community/Public Engagement • Who should be engaged? How should the “public” be constructed? • Education without persuasion. • Empower participants while focusing on key questions. • Link outputs to decision-making processes.
Editor's Notes
- “Mr. Esvelt said the project demonstrates a new approach to science that relies on transparency and community support. The public meeting last week was a first step in that direction for the Vineyard. “It is all too possible for individual scientists to build things in the laboratory that could affect potentially everyone,” Mr. Esvelt said. “We need to ensure that scientific research is done in the open.” Dr. Esvelt said he wanted some indication of community support even before he started looking for Lyme immunity genes in laboratory mice — because he believes any effort to alter an ecosystem should not go forward without it, and because it would cost tens of millions of dollars. (NYT, Amy Harmon) “I came here thinking I would say ‘absolutely not,’” [Danika] Connors, [an herbalist] said. But, she said, the level of control Esvelt wants to give to the community makes her more comfortable moving forward. (STAT article)
- Democratic impulse – core value of respecting the will of the people, self-determination, fairness Expertise impulse – trust those who know best, not the public at large Tension is not one to be resolved, but can we manage it?
- http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/ FiveThirtyEight
- THE public – Who is this? Does it include us? If “laypeople,” then what kind of expertise disqualifies you? What geographical or political boundaries are meaningful and why? If you are silent and inactive, should we count your opinion? And if perceptions and attitudes on things like biotech vary, how is the public a useful category? Publics? Recognizes that there might be pre-existing categories of people that matter with diverse behaviors and opinions. Broader than stakeholders, but focuses attention on why we think a particular group’s opinion matters. Audiences? One step further – publics are not pre-existing, but are constructed and created. Audiences have histories, are composed in particular ways (no phone, no survey), and play various roles in the communication of ideas.
- Pub Comm – marketing, education, and then asking questions about how persuasive we were, or how people learn Pub Consult – sampling attitudes or learning about how the public thinks, without providing any expert-driven information Pub Partic – creating a kind of dialogue, where public perceptions AND sponsor perceptions might change. My worry is that we tend to do #1 and #2 more frequently because of the costs and risk of #3. METAPHOR OF GRASPING HANDS
- http://www.udsu-strath.com/tag/local-knowledge/
- NCTF – Lead facilitator, Virtual deliberation I facilitated the meetings at UW Madison and led a research team that analyzed, for example, the promises and pitfalls of including a virtual or online element.
- WWViews – DBT, 38 nations, COP15 Simultaneous deliberations in 38 nations around issues of climate policy, in advance of the COP15 meetings. Facilitated the CSM deliberation, and was part of an NSF-supported research team that investigated the ways in which such exercises influence policymaking
- Learning Thoughtful engagement with diverse participants Importance of skilled facilitation High cost, more in terms of time than money
- Are GM Mosquitoes safe? Vs. What democratic and scientific practices should precede the release of GM mosquitoes to suppress populations of A. Aegypti?
- Primarily interested in stakeholders? Does geography drive our definition of public? Does diversity count? In what senses? Why? [Elections may not be a representative sample]
- Constructing the “public” (choices too often implicit or accidental) Empowering participants: providing information, deliberative learning, access to experts without being overwhelmed, maintaining autonomy Embedding in decision networks: getting beyond outreach and education, public comments Grasping hands – vulnerability of being moved http://keepingagilesimple.blogspot.com/2011/04/agile-and-empowerment.html http://blog.taitradio.com/2012/11/13/network-migration-essential-principles-for-decision-makers/
- Acknowledge their seed funding of this project