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

Recommendations

Info

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.
Nick Beckstead (University of Oxford) and Toby Ord (University of Oxford) 115 CHAPTER 10: MANAGING EXISTENTIAL RISK FROM EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Despite the political and organizational challenges, policymakers need to take account of low-probability, high-impact risks that could threaten the premature extinction of humanity.
Page 1 and 2:
INNOVATION: MANAGING RISK, NOT AVOI
Page 3:
FOREWORD Advances in science and te
Page 6 and 7:
EDITOR AND CHAPTER AUTHORS 6 Editor
Page 8:
8 CASE STUDY AUTHORS Framing Risk -
Page 11:
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Im
Page 14 and 15:
14 INTRODUCTION In today’s global
Page 16 and 17:
16 Investors face additional risks
Page 18 and 19:
18 unclear patent law), or barriers
Page 20 and 21:
More problematically, system-wide r
Page 22 and 23:
22 is unwilling or unable to undert
Page 24 and 25:
24 innovation process, or one secto
Page 26 and 27:
2 1. TRENDS IN INNOVATION AND GLOBA
Page 28 and 29:
28 the body. Nanoparticles generate
Page 30 and 31:
access to education that are occurr
Page 32 and 33:
to seek opportunities for more subs
Page 34 and 35:
34 Middle East and Africa mean that
Page 36 and 37:
At their core, decisions are about
Page 38 and 39:
38 CASE STUDY CONSISTENCY AND TRANS
Page 40 and 41:
40 within Her Majesty’s Inspector
Page 42 and 43:
42 liabilities. The coalition gover
Page 44 and 45:
44 Advances in the life sciences co
Page 46 and 47:
SECTION 2: UNCERTAINTY, COMMUNICATI
Page 49 and 50:
Andy Stirling (Science Policy Resea
Page 51 and 52:
as a whole, for seeding and selecti
Page 53 and 54:
information concerning public polic
Page 55 and 56:
Kingdom. It has 34 participating an
Page 57 and 58:
Cinderella, too often uninvited to
Page 59 and 60:
have been awarded in rational choic
Page 61 and 62:
ecomes easier to accept and justify
Page 63 and 64: Tim O’Riordan (University of East
Page 65 and 66: CASE STUDY HUMAN RIGHTS AND RISK Ka
Page 67 and 68: give the impression that certain ki
Page 69 and 70: adioactive waste in many countries
Page 71 and 72: David Spiegelhalter (University of
Page 73 and 74: course, means that 1% are violent,
Page 75 and 76: level was announced on 22 January 2
Page 77 and 78: Even in situations with limited evi
Page 79 and 80: Steve Elliott (Chemical Industries
Page 81 and 82: THE NGO PERSPECTIVE Harry Huyton (R
Page 84 and 85: SECTION 3: FRAMING RISK — THE HUM
Page 87 and 88: David Halpern and Owain Service (Be
Page 89 and 90: letter and discovered that this is
Page 91 and 92: measures have been put in place and
Page 93 and 94: Nick Pidgeon and Karen Henwood (Car
Page 95 and 96: equity of risk distribution, the pe
Page 97 and 98: individual include the emergence of
Page 99 and 100: domain of biosecurity risks. In the
Page 101 and 102: Edmund Penning-Rowsell (University
Page 103 and 104: — that is, governed by random pro
Page 105 and 106: 90% 80% Media scare stories linking
Page 107 and 108: Judith Petts (University of Southam
Page 109 and 110: The impact of intuition on response
Page 111 and 112: policy has moved towards less-inten
Page 113: more children, raising the risk of
Page 117 and 118: CASE STUDY POLICY, DECISION-MAKING
Page 119 and 120: might be developed, and what the li
Page 121 and 122: Julia Slingo (Met Office Chief Scie
Page 123 and 124: transport disruption, wind damage,
Page 125 and 126: the premiums that we have received
Page 127 and 128: Only three GM crops have been appro
Page 129 and 130: Joyce Tait (University of Edinburgh
Page 131 and 132: evidence used to support policy and
Page 133 and 134: 1). In essence, the more developed
Page 135 and 136: that engage with policy decisions o
Page 137 and 138: Lisa Jardine (University College Lo
Page 139 and 140: debate, which enabled the non-scien
Page 141 and 142: again concluded that there was stil
Page 143 and 144: we had been at such pains to educat
Page 145 and 146: ANNEX: INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Page 147 and 148: center of Paris has led to a comple
Page 149 and 150: production of unconventional hydroc
Page 151 and 152: 3.3. The current difficulty faced b
Page 153 and 154: • How can we give entrepreneurs s
Page 155 and 156: As experienced by the World Trade O
Page 157 and 158: nanodashboard.nano.gov/. 77. See Ma
Page 159 and 160: 41. Vanichkorn, S. and Banchongduan
Page 161 and 162: 22. OECD. Dynamising National Innov
Page 163 and 164: engagement. London: Zed Books; 2005
Page 165 and 166:
science and technology. Washington
Page 167 and 168:
structural model. Risk Analysis 12(
Page 169 and 170:
Chalmers, David John. (2010). “Th
Page 171 and 172:
171
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?