Group items tagged

Ralph Nader's Critical Mass Project (mentioned in Dickson's book) is now par of Public Citizen a consumer advocacy group. They support a range of topics and do so without funding from corporations, government or professional organizations. Their anti-nuclear policy agenda is linked to a larger set of policy initiatives focused on passing energy policy that is rooted in renewable energy. They provide information, action alerts and ways to oppose the resurgence of nuclear.

The goals for the 5th Living Knowledge conference are: "What innovation is needed to guide research towards public concerns? How can civil society fully participate in the co-creation of knowledge? The 5th Living Knowledge Conference will focus on getting more insight into processes, and develop specific policy recommendations that resonate with public concerns and articulated research needs." On the site we see "PERARES (Public Engagement with Research And Research Engagement with Society) project aims to strengthen the interaction between researchers and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and citizens in Europe." We also see a description of science shops: "small entities that carry out scientific research in a wide range of disciplines - usually free of charge and - on behalf of citizens and local civil society." All these things would be worth looking further into to understand what guidelines people use or recommend for engaging others in scientific & technological change. In brief, they seem very sympatico to the idea of Case 4 of the course (http://ppol749.wikispaces.umb.edu/PBLEngagementCase).

So this seems to be the other theme emerging, how you work with individuals / the public / citizens in shaping scientific research and the dialogue around it.

Committee of examine whether publicly funded agricultural research has influenced the structure of U.S. agriculture and if so, how. They also looked at the role of public-sector agricultural research on changes in the size and numbers of farms. Chapter 5 is of particular interest as it investigates the role of extension policy. There is a free executive summary and the book can be read online from this site.

Summarizes the evolution of the plant biotechnology industry in Europe and discuss relevant competitive issues. Also comments on the rise of public opposition to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture in Europe, and conclude by highlighting key aspects of the emerging European policy on GMOs, and its political economy.

Winikoff et al explore key issues related to the adjudication of the disagreement between that the US, Canada and Argentina have with the European Communities over GMOs. The primary focus is on the WTO SPS Agreement and the way in which the agreement can be used to respect cultural differences regarding risk assessment, acknowledge that science policies are value laden, and that public input and participation is even more important than scientific expertise especially in instances of low consensus and low expertise.

For more than 30 years the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Philadelphia Green program has used horticulture to build community and improve the quality of life in Philadelphia's neighborhoods and downtown public spaces. In that time there have been significant signs of rebirth in the city, and the work of Philadelphia Green has played an important role in the environmental, social, economic, and aesthetic changes taking place.

It would be interesting to know how programs like this and other environmental stewardship and conservations efforts link to increased awareness, support and engagement in policy efforts.

I haven't had time to read this fully, but it would seem finding ways to help groups of individuals work to come to decisions regarding science and technology change in a way that can expose and understand a complex situation. This bit seems relevant: "Disputes between experts provoke major difficulties for decision-making and policy implementation in the case of such public confrontations, which, more often than not, are vociferous, protracted, rancorous and unresolved. Traditionally, the neutral, disinterested and objective expert has been promoted -- not least by scientists themselves -- as the rational and authoritative arbiter of public disputes over scientific or technical issues." Published in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995), pp. 506-526, plus references, with minor changes due to sub-editing. Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards 1.

A report based on a series of "dialogue sessions" within and among scientists and policymakers in the Canadian federal government. While the report focuses on next steps for Canada agencies in particular, the description of existing conditions and justification for a new approach ring true. It's especially interesting that they identify the need for interpreters who can work at the interface, but do not explore means for establishing that role, nor do they promote this option as a fully-developed next step.

This piece talks about activism that hampers scientific research, innovation and industries that are related to things suc as "pesticides, food additives, chemicals in general, pharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and biotechnology." The article states that the scientific illiteracy of the general public makes it easy for activists to generate support for increased regulation and dampening of efforts in these areas. How do you help communities assess scientific information? How do you help them look at not only the research, but the context of the research? How should informed decisions about potentially harmful technologies and processes be handled? How do you support and engage in honest and open dialogue and debate about complex and unknown outcomes?

Orwell, in 1984, wrote, "a ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its own successors. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchal structure remains always the same".1 Due to industrialisation, even if the countries constituting the groupings change, it does not change the structural power of the Non-Annex 1 countries as the latter, under the framework constructed in the Kyoto Protocol, have secured a position of structural power.

some interesting thinking in this pdf

''Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World'' is a powerful and original statement on why well-intended attempts to alleviate pressing social ills too often derail, and how effective, efficient and broadly acceptable solutions to social problems can be found. It takes its cue from the idea that our endlessly changing and complex social worlds consist of ceaseless interactions between four ways of organizing, justifying and perceiving social relations. Each time one of these perspectives is excluded from collective decision-making, governance failure inevitably results. Successful solutions are therefore creative combinations of four opposing ways of organizing and thinking.

Rhoda, when I click on the link it goes to a login for Swarthmore. I'm thinking this article by the same authors may cover similar ground -- http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/Clumsy%20solutions%20for%20a%20complex%20world%20The%20case%20of%20climate%20change.pdf

Sorry about the link problem, Felicia. I'll see if I can fix it. Thanks for finding one that works!