14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

114
people and institutions behave such that innovation achieves
desired outcomes 31 . This framework privileges anticipation,
reflection, deliberation and response 32 , placing an onus on
innovators to reflect and listen to societal concerns and
governance systems that develop social intelligence around
the direction and control of technology 33 .
The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 34
introduced the concept of continual ‘social intelligence’
gathering as a preferred approach to understanding
how societal views and responses to new technologies
are developing, viewing one-off public engagement as
often being limited by time and, importantly, context.
The recommendation resonated with the international
experience of participatory technology assessment — such
as Real-Time Technology Assessment (RTTA) 35 , for example,
an approach practised for over ten years by the Centre
for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University
— and the various attempts by technology-assessment
organizations in Europe to open up assessment to more
inclusive approaches. The Danish Board of Technology,
for example, sought to combine its more formal role of
assessing technologies with proactive efforts to foster
public debates, particularly using consensus conferences. It
is disappointing that RTTA and similar approaches have not
gained real decision-making traction.
Other chapters in this report highlight the important,
indeed essential, role for communication and engagement
in risk decision-making. In Chapter 5, Tim O’Riordan’s plea
to hold a ‘wider conversation’ is tinged with concern for
the demands that opening-up decisions on innovation and
risk inherently implies. These demands are not simply in the
effective discussion of the science, and the need for honesty
about the uncertainties. Indeed, all of our evidence confirms
that through discussion-based engagement, members of the
public can readily engage with science and appreciate that
certainty about outcomes is not possible.
Conclusion – Responding to Culture and Motive
This chapter has sought to show that social, economic,
cultural and political contexts are fundamentally important
to how people and institutions respond to risk. How
institutions behave in the public interest has a significant
impact. As Sykes and Macnaghten note: “opening a dialogue
is never a public good in itself: its value depends on the
political culture in which it is enacted” 36 . This was strongly
evident in the case of the waste-strategy development in
Hampshire and East Sussex, two geographically-close local
authorities in the United Kingdom. In each area, the same
waste management company attempted public engagement
around the detailed planning of energy-from-waste plants.
In Hampshire, there was strong political support, and the
need for the technology had been subject to extensive
public engagement — but in East Sussex the opposite was
true. This background meant that it was more difficult for
the company to engage with the public in East Sussex. Public
engagement is never merely a suite of methods that can be
rolled out from place-to-place, regardless of context 37 .
The metaphor of the ‘field of play’ has been applied to
Public engagement is
never merely a suite of
methods that can be
rolled out from placeto-place,
regardless of
context.
the idea of mediated risk communication 38 . Developed in
response to the over-simplified view of the role of the
media as perpetrators of the social amplification of risks, the
model sees audiences as active rather than passive receivers
of messages. Government and state agencies, opposition
parties, campaigning groups, corporations, scientific and
expert communities as well as the media engage in a
continual contest for public position and advantage.
Communication and engagement has to be design-based and
user-centered; that is based on an understanding of existing
(and hence inherently changing) knowledge and beliefs. This
requires detailed analysis over time of how different publics
talk about and respond to highly specific and contextdependent
risk issues.
This is far easier to say than to do (as discussed in
Chapters 5, 7 and 11). Although a ‘new governance agenda’
(see Chapter 11) is evident, closing the gap between
listening to views and concerns, and developing publiclytrusted
policy responses around innovation, remains a
serious challenge not only nationally but particularly in a
trans-national context. This is because the opening up of
decisions on innovation challenges preferred and embedded
positions of expertise, power and authority.
Ultimately, innovation may not be tolerated at a particular
point in time for perfectly logical reasons that have far less
to do with concerns about the potential risks than with
disquiet about institutional motives and behaviour, and
perceived threats to the things that people value. There is
an onus on decision-makers to proactively enhance their
understanding of the power of context and to appreciate
the common dimensions of responses, even between
apparently unrelated risks. There is an essential need to
gather social intelligence over time rather than merely
supporting one-off public engagement exercises, particularly
where these have more to do with trying to persuade the
public of the benefits and the safety of technology. Effective
innovation will require a partnership between decisionmakers
and the public that is characterized by listening,
open and ongoing discussions, and trust. Of course, such
characteristics take time and resources to develop and
perfect. But expending such effort is likely to be more
efficient and effective in supporting innovation.