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

Occupy the Farm Activists Reclaim Prime Urban Agricultural Land in SF Bay Area. Category: Comments from The Berkeley Daily Planet

Participation of experts in working groups, not all citizens. Interesting nevertheless.

This group presents on 4/24 from 7-9pm as part of the Cambridge Science Festival

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).

Doing good things better is Brian's latest book. He is prolific and in this book he describes the discipline of daily writing that he used to write this book (and previous work) -- and that he leads his students to use. The principles of daily writing are given in brief at http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/DailyWriting.html. Looking at Brian's website of writing, you will find material on activism, especially around developments in science and technology, but not only this.

My sense of Yamana is that it works mostly as a clearinghouse of exchange of innovative approaches. The second unSummit coming up in a few weeks has no schedule of papers, but facilitates discussions that evolve over the 2 days. I think one would have to experience this to understand how it works. I had planned to do so this time, but decided I was too far behind on following up on previous connections. Here are Yamana's guidelines: "We feel the current culture of science creates an invisible cost in loss of productivity, slower rates of discovery, and 'wasting assets,' including human capital. We are committed to having enough conversations with the people that can make a difference, including (and perhaps especially) within our own scientific communities. We will transform what is possible both for people who are currently working in the field of science and for those that are interested in studying to become scientists. We will impact the experience of learning science, the experience of teaching science and the experience of doing science. We include conversations across the whole gamut of what affects desired outcomes, from salaries, to healthcare, to personal leave, to the work environment, to the conversations being had about science, to how science is funded, commercialized, and shared. By acting as a clearinghouse for issues and concerns, as well as a catalyst for potential solutions, we are connecting the passionate voices in science with one another to create a shared vision for the future."

The Genewatch (USA) website has abundant resources, in the form of links to what is going on and to other groups as well as an archive of 25 years of their magazine. Their role is to monitor new developments. Other than educating readers and getting them concerned, their many approach to getting people engaged seems to be to get them to sign petition and contact their elected representatives. (I looked for articles about teaching, but didn't find them easily if they are there.)

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.

We spent two years working with lawyers to design a contract - learning from the best aspects of other pharmaceutical companies - to ensure that the Amazonian people benefit from a percentage of any profits with conservation and education initiatives. We are distributing the money through trusted, long-term local NGOs. So far we have created a beautiful medicine garden to conserve plants used for women's health. We also want to build a training centre to teach the community the medicine and remedy-making skills I learned, but which the new generation has lost.

This is the book I mentioned in class that conveys a strong sense of: a) how much we depend on that is below (infra) our attention; b) how difficult it is to try to get to understand how it all functions.

not an extreme climatic event, but an example of improving science-policy connections

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

"The dam collapse [in 1979] is one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and no one has heard about it,"--myself included. One of the policy responses to extreme climatic events is to suppress knowledge. ""This book is an attempt to tell the story of this place-western India in 1979-this monsoon, the government cover-up that unjustly silenced this narrative for too long..." 25,000 people died.

This article shows insurance company data that indicates that costs from storms and floods are going up, but not so much from earthquakes, tsunamis or from temperature extremes. It connects with CS's inquiry on frequency of extreme climatic events and my project on using the insurance industry to get beyond political posturing.

The four diagrams capture the 4 world views about human impact on the environment. (I provide some critical commentary on this view of worldviews in "Exploring themes about social agency through interpretation of diagrams of nature and society," in How Nature Speaks: The Dynamics of the Human Ecological Condition , ed. Y. Haila and C. Dyke. Durham, NC, Duke University Press)

Seeing this news item this morning reminded me that, whenever a topic is raised in a course, one then starts to "see" news about it. I put "see" in scare quotes because most likely the topic was in the news before, but now one notices it. On the substance of the news item, it does show that sometimes business picks up on the science even when it remains contested by politics. For example, nuclear power plants are not being built in most part because corporations with millions of dollars cannot see themselves making a profit and bearing the risk.