Group items tagged

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.

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.

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.

Office publication from the Intellectual Property Office, Newport South Wales

This publication might be helpful in some of your inquiry since it outlines some of the guidelines for determining intellectual property for biotechnology inventions in the UK.

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.

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 Public Science Project situated at the CUNY Graduate Center works in a participatory action research agenda.  They work in collaboration with groups on the ground. The website states:  "PAR Collective, we began our work as a coalition of activists, researchers, youth, elders, lawyers, prisoners, and educators, launching projects on educational injustice, lives under surveillance,and the collateral damage of mass incarceration. Most of our projects have been situated in schools and/or community-based organizations struggling for quality education, economic opportunities, and human rights. Knowledge-sharing research camps set the stage for most of our research, designed to bring together differently positioned people around a common table to design and implement the research: youth and educators; young people who have been pushed out of schools and mothers organizing for quality education in communities under siege; prisoners, organizers, and academics. Most projects have vibrant advisory boards of youth, community elders, educators and/or activists to shape the work and hold us accountable to the needs and desires of local communities." They conduct research, trainings, and consulting services as well as resources for PAR.

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?

an initiative to build an international infrastructure, open to public as well as researchers. mimics what it studies.

Meredith Minkler reviews the current status and practice of CBR in the U.S. and abroad, providing reasons to undertake this admittedly more-complex path for public health research in particular (identifying questions that reflect real community concerns; achieving informed consent and building community capacity; increasing cultural sensitivity and validity of measurement tools, data interpretation, and interventions; uncovering critical lay knowledge; and improving participant recruitment and retention). Along with ethical issues, Minkler uses case study examples to highlight other challenges inherent in the practice, and provides some guidelines for engagement. To my mind, her review is balanced and raises several issues not touched upon by other scholarly writings re: CBR process and practice.

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

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.

an entry point to a checklist of conditions for organizers and facilitators to foster when running a collaborative process. The checklists are organized under four headings: Respect, Risk, Revelation, Re-engagement. The thinking behind these headings is, in brief, that a well-facilitated collaborative process keeps us listening actively to each other, fostering mutual Respect that allows Risks to be taken, elicits more insights than any one person came in with (Revelation), and engages us in carrying out and carrying on the plans we develop (Re-engagement). What we come out with is very likely to be larger and more durable than what any one person came in with; the more so, the more voices that are brought out by the process. The sequence of 4Rs grew out of an an annual series of experimental, interaction-intensive, interdisciplinary workshops that "foster collaboration among those who teach, study, and engage with the public about scientific developments and social change" (http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc.html). Since we named the 4Rs, we have found ourselves using them to review and redesign our teaching, theories about learning, committee meetings, and, in general, the cultivation of collaborators.

With a PhD in Biochemistry from Oxford, Nich Anthis combines his dual passions in science and politics to comment on issues and research that are at the intersection of both. Nick writes: "Recognizing science as a path toward understanding nature, distinct from corporate and other applications, The Scientific Activist opens up a new dialogue on the proper role of science in an ever changing society. The truth isn't always black or white, but an informed public is an empowered one, so I won't shy away from the complex issues. Most importantly, though, The Scientific Activist takes on the people and obstacles standing in the way of the progress and proper application of science. Enemies of science, beware!" He is working towards more nuanced and complex understandings of what science means and what role it plays in a complex world.

The Center for Digital Storytelling engages people to share personal stories, bearing witness as related to their lives leading to action and positive change.

Narratives and frames are powerful things. It would seem that any endeavor would benefit from knowing what is a compelling "story" to engage the public. Youth development organizations use this tool quite a lot in their work.

I remember you had been talking about using story boards in one of the other cases. I am wondering if there is a way to use both of those ideas for Case 4.

On-the-job learning

Those lunch pictures look great! But the real reason I responded here is that the Scott Arboretum and other public horticulture organizations across the country have assisted with many school gardens. The problems always fall back to maintenance when the children are not in school over the summer months and then they lay dormant most of the winter in colder climates.

Rhoda, those are good points. This might open up opportunities for small groups. Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Youth Center groups, and Community Service could handle the summer months and vacation days and weeks. I am not sure if there is much that could be done in the winter in New England. I will try to have something on this for my PowerPoint.

Questions whether, even in the face of natural disaster, liberals will be more likely than conservatives to state that those in need should receive governmental assistance.

This article is by a leading member of the STEPS centre at the U. Sussex, which addresses sustainability, development & environmental change