Talk given Monday 6th January for ECW, Bangor University.

1. +
Wacky Science or Responsible Innovation? Public
Perceptions of Geoengineering (Scientists).
Dr Karen Parkhill, Human Geography Lecturer in SENRGy
k.parkhill@bangor.ac.uk
@DrKAParkhill @BUGeography

2. +
Overview

What is geoengineering?

Why were we doing research with publics on „theoretical‟
putative geoengineering technologies? Stagegate

Responsible innovation and analysis

Public perceptions of scientists





Intentions
Responsibility
Impacts
Role of publics in RI
Conclusions

3. +
Geoengineering Definition
“deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to
counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Royal Society, 2009: 1).
(Vaughan &
Lenton,
2011)

4. +
Stratospheric Particle Injection for
Climate Engineering

Two projects funded from EPSRC/NERC
Geoengineering sandpit

IAGP

SPICE

Modeling & 1-2km Test-bed

Stagegate

5. +
Methods

Case site areas:



3 x pilots Cardiff
3 x main (Norwich, Nottingham, Cardiff)
Sample

Diverse sample: gender, age, ethnicity, SEG, educational level

6. +

Responsible Innovation?
Dimensions of RI

Anticipatory – describing & analysing (un)intended impacts

Reflective – ethically reflecting on narratives of expectation & the
social transformation these might bring

Deliberative – opening up visions/impacts etc. to others, inviting &
listening to wider perspectives

Responsive – using reflexivity to influence the direction & pace of the
innovation process

7. +
Data Analysis Questions
1. What do varied publics believe are the intentions & motivations (of
scientists, governments etc.) behind the development of
geoengineering techniques?
2. What do publics believe are the desired outcomes of
geoengineering techniques?
3. Do publics believe there are wider products/impacts of
geoengineering? What of (scientific) uncertainties?
4. Who do publics feel is responsible for responding to climate
change & investigating geoengineering? What role, if any, do
publics feel they have in the RI of geoengineering?

8. +
Analysis – Intentions

Scientists/Engineers: Innovators working for the common good

„Science is an icon of modern society…”science” (in general)
enjoys high public esteem & interest in surveys yet suffers apathy
and worse in many specific encounters‟ (Wynne, 1991: 112).

“Motive. Why [do] people do it? … It‟s not going to be cost free
when you first start doing this. You can see an altruistic motive
there, but people will do these things if there is a financial
incentive, if there is a reason for doing it, if governments pay them
to do it, if they can get a spin off from it…then people are starting
to mess with our lives for their financial benefit” (Male,
Nottingham)

9. +
Analysis II - Responsibility

Social contract between publics & innovators

Modified moral hazard: innovators encouraged to concentrate
on technical „fixes‟ not mitigation?


Limited skills base – geoengineering or mitigation
Innovators ensure their ideas are safe and safely developed

Impacts

Incremental development stages

Freely sharing knowledge (successes & failures)

10. +
Analysis III - Impacts

Limits to what is knowable

Tests able to be scaled up?

“…it‟s all still only on trial isn‟t it? And research, we don‟t really
know what would happen on such a big scale, they might have done
little bits…But when they start doing it [cloud brightening] with these
boats…and throwing up all that, you never know what might
happen” (Iowerth, Cardiff).

11. +
Analysis IV – The role of publics

Limited input due to complexity of „extraordinary‟ tech?
William – No we need to do this [investigate geoengineering] but the
answers I think are a bit – well they‟re beyond me anyway.
Frank – Yeah, I don‟t think the answers can be done by a layman.
That‟s gonna take someone more intelligent than me to sort it out.
(Norwich)

Worried about being held accountable if things go wrong.

Limited ability to influence development trajectories or
governance decisions:
“I just don‟t think my opinions would matter and things are going to
happen whether I dislike it or not” (Ruby, Nottingham)

Despite difficulties, most participants did feel that publics should
be engaged with on a continual basis.

12. +
Conclusion

Participants did not want to stifle innovation BUT concerned
good intentions of innovators usurped by politics/business.

They wanted (continued) humility to recognise - “asymmetry
between what is intended and what is merely brought about”
(Jamieson, 1996).

Make explicit the process of RI and publics (necessary) role

Scientific citizens
(Irwin, 1995), philosophers, moralisers, governors, regulators, ethici
sts, and much more.

13. +
Acknowledgements

Nick Pidgeon, Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan

EPSRC & NERC (IAGP – EP/1014721/1)

US National Science Foundation (SES 0938099)

IAGP advisory panel (www.iagp.ac.uk)

Merryn Thomas & Joel Burton

SPICE team – esp. Kirsty Kuo

Publics

14. +
References

Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., and
Guston, D., (2013), ‘A framework of responsible innovation’, in : R.
Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz (Eds), Responsible Innovation, London:
Wiley, pp. 27-50.

Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., Corner, A. and
Vaughan, N., (2013).„Deliberation and Responsible Innovation: a
Geoengineering Case Study‟, in: R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz
(Eds), Responsible Innovation, London: Wiley, pp. 219-239.

Parkhill, K. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Public Engagement on
Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative
Workshops. Working Paper. Cardiff: School of Psychology, Cardiff University.
Available at: http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/spice.pdf

Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K., Corner, A. J. and Vaughan, N. (2013).
Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE
project. Nature Climate Change, 3, 451-457.

Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T., (2011), A review of climate geoengineering
proposals, Climate Change, 109, 745-790.

Wynne, B., (1991), „Knowledges in context‟, Science, Technology & Human
Values, 15(1), pp. 111-121.