14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
66<br />
social learning. This places much greater emphasis on the<br />
notion of wellbeing with its qualities of personal esteem,<br />
confidence building, leadership, enterprise, and cooperation<br />
as a basis for improving personal and public health; for<br />
enabling capabilities to flourish in everyone; and for offering<br />
meaningful ways to change local circumstances for the<br />
betterment of neighbours as well as of families. Only a<br />
flourishing and more equalizing society can converse across<br />
social space with confidence and compassion.<br />
Science can play a vital part in this process. Alex Ryan<br />
and Daniela Tilbury argue for new approaches to learning<br />
for sustainability leadership for young people 10 . They call for<br />
a fresh approach to critical analysis; to more cooperative<br />
forms of learning between students and faculty and all<br />
manner of stakeholders beyond the classroom; and for much<br />
more creative approaches to combining the imaginings of<br />
all pupils in laying out future outcomes and consequences<br />
for the fair treatment of future generations. Theirs is a plea<br />
for much more student leadership in learning, and for much<br />
greater freedom to explore fresh approaches to analysing<br />
circumstances and devising ways forward. Here is a recipe<br />
for a science for sustainability in which holding a wider<br />
conversation plays a fascinating and creative role.<br />
This report covers all of the key features of relating<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> to <strong>risk</strong>. It especially concentrates on the many<br />
ways in which <strong>risk</strong>s are judged, and the emerging global<br />
and local contexts in which decisions have to be made<br />
regarding <strong>innovation</strong> to better future societies the world<br />
over. And it forces recognition of the requirement of<br />
resilience in the design of innovative success. Resilience<br />
is sometimes misapplied as a byword for sustainability<br />
because the essential ingredient of sustainability is selfreliance.<br />
Self-reliance can best be visualized and attained by a<br />
setting for <strong>innovation</strong> where wellbeing, fairness, adaptability<br />
and leadership enable everyone to converse with shared<br />
understanding for a much more fair and tolerable<br />
democracy in a limiting but forgiving planet.<br />
Holding a wider conversation, therefore, has to take into<br />
account changing perceptions of democracy, fairness of<br />
treatment, opportunities for flourishing, and a culture of<br />
belonging to the ever-changing worlds of <strong>risk</strong> and <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
It is by no means confined to conversing. Nick Pidgeon<br />
observes in Chapter 8 that <strong>risk</strong> tolerance is a function of<br />
critical trust formation which arrives with creative forms<br />
of engagement and independent referentials of advice<br />
and commentary. We shall see that such procedures<br />
are now being offered by the government in its recently<br />
revised consultation White Paper on geological disposal of<br />
radioactive waste 11 .<br />
On widening engagement<br />
The Lords’ Committee on Science and Technology reviewed<br />
the troubled relationship between science and society 12 . It<br />
noted strands that are carried forward in this report, namely<br />
that science is being dissected for its probity, its sources<br />
of funding and its intended audience. The Committee also<br />
examined how science is standing in the public dock over<br />
who seems to be gaining from its benefits and over what<br />
period of time, and to what degree science is attentive to<br />
various underlying public concerns that normally transcend<br />
scientific analysis. Two particular observations presented in<br />
the executive summary of the Committee’s report stand<br />
out:<br />
• “Some issues currently treated by decision-makers as<br />
scientific issues in fact involve many other factors besides<br />
science. Framing the problem wrongly by excluding moral,<br />
social, ethical and other concerns invites hostility.”<br />
• “Underlying people’s attitudes to science are a variety of<br />
values. Bringing these into the debate and reconciling them<br />
are challenges for the policy-maker.”<br />
Four cases of <strong>risk</strong> in relation to both science and<br />
technological <strong>innovation</strong> emphasize these observations.<br />
One is the BSE scare, which highlighted the contentious<br />
links between bioscience and the commercial food industry<br />
(see Chapter 9). Another similar theme, still very much in<br />
<strong>evidence</strong>, is the long running public hostility to genetically<br />
modified (GM) crops and food (see case study in Chapter<br />
11). A third, also yet to be resolved, is the non-acceptance<br />
of safe disposal of long-lived radioactive waste (see below).<br />
The fourth, also still highly politically contentious, is the<br />
hydraulic fracturing of methane-containing shale formations<br />
(see case study on fracking at the end of Section 2). These<br />
case studies contribute to the <strong>evidence</strong> base of this chapter.<br />
What characterizes all four of these typical but not<br />
exhaustive <strong>innovation</strong>-<strong>risk</strong> examples is the science-led<br />
initial development; the connection to a profitmaking<br />
commercial sector; an unbalanced distribution between<br />
those who gain and those who are exposed to the<br />
perceived <strong>risk</strong>s; an inconsistency over the seemingly wide<br />
ranging general benefit of the technology and the localized<br />
or targeted exposure to any residual <strong>risk</strong>s; complicated<br />
time frames of immediate gain and prolonged uncertain<br />
disadvantages, especially for future generations; and a deeply<br />
felt resentment amongst vociferous antagonists that their<br />
preciously held underlying values are being excluded from<br />
the final policy decision. In essence these case studies<br />
Only a flourishing<br />
and more equalizing<br />
society can converse<br />
across social space<br />
with confidence and<br />
compassion.