14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
68<br />
knowledge across disciplines and backgrounds.<br />
• future-facing education: by refocusing learning towards<br />
engagement and change processes that help people to<br />
consider prospects and hopes for the future and to<br />
anticipate, rethink and work towards alternative and<br />
preferred future scenarios.<br />
• inter-cultural learning: by replacing dominant teaching that<br />
promotes only Western worldviews, in favour of experiences<br />
that extend inter-cultural understanding and the ability to<br />
think and work using globally-sensitive frames and methods.<br />
• transformative capabilities: by creating an educational focus<br />
beyond an emphasis solely on knowledge and understanding,<br />
towards agency and competence.<br />
• crossing boundaries: by taking an integrative and systemic<br />
approach to learning, to generate inter-disciplinary, interprofessional<br />
and cross-sectoral learning, to maximize<br />
collaboration and shared perspective, while being<br />
empathetic to bias and differences of perspective.<br />
• social learning: by developing cultures and environments<br />
for learning that harness the emancipatory power of<br />
interactions outside of the formal curriculum and classroom,<br />
particularly through the use of new technologies and<br />
internship activities.<br />
We may be at the beginning of a fresh approach to learning,<br />
to meaningful engagement and to the role of the scientist/<br />
facilitator in the fusion of knowledge and values through<br />
authentic processes of conversing. To get there we need to<br />
learn from sincere efforts to bring in a wider conversation<br />
over <strong>innovation</strong> and <strong>risk</strong>.<br />
This raises the matter of the degree to which education,<br />
particularly in schools, but also in higher learning, should<br />
address capacities for open-mindedness, flexibility in coping<br />
with many strands of disciplines and measurements, and<br />
citizenship in the form of a sense of moral responsibility<br />
for the wellbeing of both present and future generations. It<br />
may well be that this is one outcome of this assessment of<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> and <strong>risk</strong>, namely preparing all future young people<br />
for a world of coping and improving learned capabilities<br />
of empathy, resilience, compassion, determination, and<br />
adaptation.<br />
The experiences of the GM and radioactive waste<br />
disposal consultations<br />
In 2002/3 the government sponsored an unusually large<br />
scale public debate over the possible commercialisation of<br />
genetically modified crops in the UK. This process, called GM<br />
Nation?, was examined in considerable detail by Tom Horlick-<br />
Jones and colleagues 24 (2007). The government established<br />
an Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission<br />
(2001:12) which argued for a massive public discussion on<br />
the grounds that any public policy on GM should “expose,<br />
respect and embrace the differences of view which exist,<br />
rather than bury them” 25 . The result was a complicated<br />
drama of many scenes and acts where a novel mix of “fact”,<br />
“value” and “learning” unsatisfactorily ill-combined.<br />
The Horlick-Jones study 24 concluded that the GM<br />
Nation? process was well meaning, sincerely attempted,<br />
but ultimately flawed. There was imperfect coordination<br />
between the various stages of scientific assessment and<br />
public engagement. The government’s own decision-making<br />
advisory procedures were complex and confusing. It was<br />
also breathless and rushed. The briefing materials provided<br />
for the public meetings were bland and incomplete. The<br />
broad mass of the mostly disengaged public was not involved<br />
(a Habermasian observation). The process heightened<br />
antagonism rather than reduced it. So the outcome<br />
indicated a higher status of outright opposition to GM than<br />
was observed in the general public from opinion polls (an<br />
observation that is admittedly very time dependent).<br />
These findings reveal the difficulty of creating a<br />
consultative process that meets everyone’s expectations.<br />
This is particularly so because the process was feeling<br />
its way, and there were powerful commercial interests<br />
involved, both in favour (on the biotechnology side) as well<br />
as opposed (on the food retail side). There were important<br />
legal features involving the European Union 24 . All this is of<br />
great interest in the light of a fresh initiative favouring GM<br />
crops in the light of a growing and wealthier population<br />
seeking more environmentally and socially demanding food<br />
supplies in the face of declining biodiversity and climate<br />
change 26 . Even though the stakes are much higher today,<br />
it is unlikely that any rapid decision favouring GM crop<br />
production in the United Kingdom or the European Union<br />
more generally will prove imminent — despite the recent<br />
agreement from the EU’s Environment Council to give<br />
member states more flexibility over GM crop experiments<br />
and production. (This would need to be agreed by the<br />
European Parliament before coming into force.) This<br />
observation underscores the ambivalence with which the<br />
general public regard much of <strong>innovation</strong> and <strong>risk</strong>, favouring<br />
the broad benefits but wary of the uncertain long-term<br />
consequences, particularly where traditional science does<br />
not seem to have a clear answer. The case study by Phil<br />
Macnaghten in Chapter 2 endorses these conclusions. He<br />
argues persuasively for a more preparatory institutional<br />
capability to be much more aware and sensitive to various<br />
bodies of amassed bias in anticipation of ‘going public’ with<br />
an <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
This anomaly is particularly evident in the long running<br />
and tortuous process regarding the deep disposal of<br />
The GMNation? process<br />
was well meaning,<br />
sincerely attempted,but<br />
ultimately flawed.