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)
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
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?
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
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.
“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?
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/