Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies Workshop
Appendices
Appendix A – preliminary documents ........................................................................................ 2
Emailed invitation to selected invitees .................................................................................. 2
Information on Eventbrite registration page ......................................................................... 3
Background information sent to participants ........................................................................ 4
Technology Examples ............................................................................................................. 5
Appendix B – Process and Results in Detail ............................................................................... 7
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 7
Session 1—Societal implications ............................................................................................ 9
Session 2—the decision-making context ............................................................................. 22
Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 28
Wrap-up ............................................................................................................................... 34
Exhibitions Boards for Societal Implications session ........................................................... 35
Appendix C —Participant survey results .................................................................................. 40
Appendix D – Societal considerations for enabling technologies ............................................ 52
1
Appendix A – preliminary documents
Emailed invitation to selected invitees
We would like to invite your participation in a workshop on Societal Implications of Enabling
Technologies, to be held in central Melbourne on 4 October 2012, from 9.30 am til 4.30
pm. The venue is yet to be confirmed.
This interactive workshop will bring together a range of stakeholders, commentators and
members of the wider community to discuss how technologies affect people’s work,
lifestyles, relationships, culture and values such as equity, privacy and choice, drawing on
our experiences of existing technologies like smart phones. We will then consider how these
societal implications could be taken into account in decision making about technologies,
particularly
focusing
on
enabling technologies
like
nanotechnology
and
biotechnology. The workshop will draw on an Enabling Technology Futures Survey soon to
be released by DIISRTE.
The workshop is being run under the STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways)
framework by the National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS) - Public Awareness and
Community Engagement program within the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research & Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). It will be independently facilitated and outcomes
will be presented to the NETS Expert Forum to inform their final reporting and to other
policy makers/advisors.
You have been selected to bring your unique perspective and knowledge to the workshop. If
you are interested and able to attend, can recommend another person from your
organisation able to take your place, or would like further information, please reply
to [email protected]. We would appreciate your reply by Wed 24 Sept.
Note that some funding is available, if required, to assist in attending the workshop. Please
make a case detailing your situation and what assistance you need and each situation will be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Russell
Dr A. Wendy Russell
Enabling Technologies - Public Awareness & Community Engagement
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
2
Information on Eventbrite registration page
Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies
How decision making about new platform technologies could better
take account of societal issues, impacts and values
Enabling technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology promise
to revolutionise diverse sectors of the economy (think of new generation
smart phones, or personalized medicine based on your genetic code, or
materials that monitor and respond to the environment, or new crops
making bioplastics and biofuels). What are the broader societal
implications of these developments? How do they affect people’s work,
lifestyles, relationships and culture and values such as equity, privacy and
choice? Must society accept these effects, or can they be considered and
anticipated when decisions are made about new technology?
This free interactive forum will consider societal implications of
technologies and how they can be taken into account in decision-making.
The forum will draw on a study of current and future developments in
enabling technologies, entitled Enabling Technology Futures – A Survey of
the Australian Technology Landscape, recently published by the
Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research
and Tertiary Education.
We are seeking to involve a range of people, including decision makers
from research, industry and government; users including businesses,
professionals and consumers; citizens, community groups and social
scientists. Anyone with an interest in technology and the future we
encourage to attend.
If you have any queries, please contact: [email protected]
3
Background information sent to participants
Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies Workshop
Background Information
The Enabling Technology Futures Survey provides information about the future of enabling
technologies including nanotechnology, biotechnology and synthetic biology in Australia. It
focuses on the development and commercialisation of these technologies, including
opportunities and barriers, and their potential to address major national challenges. It also
considers factors affecting adoption of enabling technologies.
The upcoming workshop will consider the societal implications arising from adoption of new
technologies, that is, their broad effects on society, particularly focussing on work, lifestyles,
relationships and culture and values such as equity, privacy and choice. We’ll explore these
implications by considering some key examples of technologies and applications, familiar
and novel, present and future (below).
We’ll then discuss how these societal implications could be more effectively considered in
decision making about the development and commercialisation of enabling technologies.
This will involve a discussion about the decision making context for development of enabling
technologies; what stages are involved, who makes the decisions, and what types of
decisions are made. This session will also touch on opportunities and barriers, including
those identified in the futures survey.
Having developed an understanding of the decision making context, we will then consider
how and at what stages the societal implications identified in the first session could be taken
into account and how societal input and engagement could lead to the development of
technologies more in tune to the needs, concerns and aspirations of society.
The workshop will be a participatory, interactive workshop involving structured small group
work and report-backs. Come prepared to have your say!
Agenda for the day
9:00
Registration, tea and coffee
9:30
Introduction
10:00 Session 1 – societal implications
12:30 Lunch
1:30
Session 2 – decision making context
3:15
Session 3 – what needs to happen?
4:30
Close
4
Technology Examples
Mobile/smart phones
Smart phones are getting smaller, more powerful, more multifunctional and cheaper with
innovations including nano-electronics. They create the potential for mobile communication,
meaning that people can be contactable anywhere, anytime, and potentially all the time,
potentially creating serious work-life issues. They also provide increased information access,
making it possible to be constantly connected to the internet and a range of information and
communication sources. They also have the potential to provide a range of services, like GPS
navigation, remote control of other devices, and medical diagnostics. Developments making
smart phones cheaper and more accessible create the potential for more people, including
young people and marginalised people, to use them. They also increase the turn-over,
resource use and waste associated with these devices.
What are the social effects of being constantly connected? How does it affect our
communication and relationships, our work-life balance? How does it affect our awareness
of the world around us, of ourselves and of others? What are some of the privacy and
security issues?
Genomics and genetic testing and screening
Genomic sequencing is getting cheaper and more accessible. This opens up the possibility
that ordinary people can get information about their entire genetic code. As well as
providing information for medical research and therapeutic design, this could provide
individuals with information about medical conditions and propensities and possibly other
characteristics and capacities. Genomic information could guide medical treatment and
lifestyle choices but could potentially also be used for and have negative consequences in
insurance assessments or employment decisions. Such information can also be used for preimplantation screening of embryos and for gene therapy. There is still considerable
uncertainty about what genetic information tells us and the links between genetics and
environment, and considerable controversy over potential uses.
What are some of the ethical issues associated with genomic information and the choices it
opens up for us? How could information be misused or misunderstood and what are the
implications? Are there issues with equitable access and ownership of genomic information?
Renewable energy technologies
A range of technological developments are aimed at providing energy efficiency and
renewable energy production. These include new developments using nanotechnology in
batteries, fuel cells and solar cells; developments in using various forms of biomass, and in
modifying crops and microorganisms for use as biofuels; and other areas such as artificial
photosynthesis. These developments have the potential to shift energy production to
renewable sources and to reduce energy use. New technologies are also being applied to
reforming non-renewable energy sources such as coal. Potential concerns include who will
pay and who will benefit from these developments.
Is progress towards sustainability sufficient? How will these developments affect our
willingness to change our energy use and our energy systems? Will crop use for biofuels
compete with food crops or other land uses? With what impacts?
5
Regenerative medicine
Developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology have created new treatments for a
range of human diseases and disorders. Breakthroughs of the last century such as organ and
tissue transplants and hearing aides may be replaced by new ways of growing tissues and
organs using stem cells and cell culture and nano-bionic devices that regenerate and
augment functions such as hearing and vision. New nanotechnology and biotechnology
developments are creating possibilities for regenerating, muscles, joints and nerves and for
treating neurological conditions such as epilepsy and Parkinsons’ disease. These
developments create the potential for new ways of fixing our bodies as they stop
functioning, either because of disease, old age or misuse. They potentially lead to increased
longevity (will children of today live to 150 years?) and the possibility of human
enhancement, for example for sport and military applications. Potential issues include equity
of access, control of use, ethical use and safety.
How might regenerative medicine change our approach to life, how we regard and treat our
bodies, and how we relate to health, illness and death? What are the societal implications of
increased longevity – socially, economically, culturally? What are some of the implications of
human enhancement?
Enabling Assistive technologies
Various technologies are being applied to supporting quality of life, healthcare and
independence for older and disabled people. Developments in information technologies (IT)
can improve safety in the home through developments in access, domestic design and
remote surveillance as well as providing access to services and social connections.
Convergence of developments in IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology could provide
diagnostics, monitoring and treatment based on wearable or implantable devices, webbased monitoring and consultation. Robots are being developed to provide domestic
services, care and company in the home. These technologies potentially replace human
services and interventions and are being driven by changing demographics. Potential issues
of concern include privacy, control and ownership of data and its control, and equitable
access.
What will society be like as the proportion of older people increases? What are the social
effects of replacing services provided by people with technologies? How will older people
experience these technologies – will they be empowering or disempowering? Who will
control and own these technologies and the data generated by them?
New crops, new foods
New crops and foods are being created through genetic modification of crops, as well as of
livestock and microorganisms, and through new processing techniques using biotechnology
and nanotechnology innovations. New crops have been made with tolerance to herbicides
and resistance to insects as well as to other environmental stresses including drought and
salinity. New foods may have altered composition eg of oils and fats, be enriched in
particular nutrients such as vitamins or even contain new therapeutic substances. These
foods are new to our systems and to our cultures. However, the safety, potential risks, and
ethical concerns of GM modified foods and crops are still being debated.
What are some of the implications for health, eating habits and the culture of food? How
might new crops affect the structure of agriculture and agricultural practices? What are
6
some of the global implications? What environmental issues may arise from release of new
crops and changes to land use?
Appendix B – Process and Results in Detail
At the start of the day, people were encouraged to fill in and drop off surveys. Then they
came to the front of the room and sat down in randomly placed chairs.
Keith Greaves (Director, Chit Chat) introduced himself as the facilitator (with colleague Sally
Abbott) and welcomed people to the event. The day started off with an icebreaker activity.
Introduction
Icebreaker activity—who’s here?
People were told they would meet four new people and have quick conversations with
them. Each conversation was initiated with a prompting question by Keith. People were
asked to answer the question, then to talk about anything they please for two minutes.
Question 1
‘On my way here today, I was thinking …’
Answers
‘I wonder what will come out of today. Who will be here, what will happen? I am excited
nonetheless’.
‘I’m tired! I had to get up early!’
Question 2
‘I first started working in my role as a xxx because …’
(answers were not discussed)
Question 3
‘The thing I’ve always wanted to influence in technology development is …’
(answers were not discussed)
Question 4
‘My hope for this workshop is …’
Before discussing the answers to the final questions, people were asked to partner up with
another pair, sit down and—in groups of 4—swap answers for the last question.
Answers
‘To be more understanding of the societal impacts of technology. The group [I am in] is more
technologically advanced, and [we] want to know how technology impacts life. Also, how do
we improve scientific literacy in the community and vice versa?’
‘[We are curious about the] outcomes [from today], and how the ideas that come out will be
picked up by government and how will it influence decisions government makes. How does
government take those concerns into account? We acknowledge that it is hard for
governments’.
‘We hope that today is not just a talkfest, and that action will happen’.
7
‘What is the current state of enabling technology in Australia? How much is invested? What
is being done? Where is it being done? To what degree or levels is the technology involving?
How does the public perceive it?’
‘See discussions about how communities can say “no” to some technologies, and that science
and technology are delinked. Anything that can put the community in charge, instead of
policy makers’.
Other recorded hopes for the day included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
How change is implemented!
[Finding out about the] public’s appreciation of enabling technologies.
Some discussion about how the community can say no to certain technologies.
That ideas that come up [from the dialogue can be] picked up by government.
[That we can] influence the decisions the government makes.
[Learning about the] decision-making process of enabling technologies.
Formal welcome
Dr Wendy Russell (Enabling Technologies—Public Awareness & Engagement, Australian
Government Department of Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) did
the formal welcome. She introduced herself and her colleague Daria Lonsdale to the group.
A year ago, a workshop helped developed a framework for Science and Technology
Engagement Pathways (STEP). STEP is a new framework for Australian that is about bringing
citizens and stakeholders together to discuss new technologies, focusing on biotechnology,
nanotechnology and synthetic biology. STEP is being implemented this year, including this
workshop, called 2012 STEP into the Future.
To set the scene for the type of thinking encouraged at the STEP events, Wendy asked
people to about people might have felt when cars were being developed and sold at the turn
of the 20th century. Did people think about societal implications then? Did they think about
congestion? How cars would become a status symbol? Whole transport systems? Safety?
How cars influence the city?
What would have happened? We might not have accepted the car, but we might have come
up with another type of car. The world could have been very different.
Today, platform technologies have the potential to have a significant impact, like the car did.
Many platform technologies are controversial, and for some, there is risk to public health
and environment.
However, a narrow focus on risk takes the benefits and rewards of a technology for granted.
Technologies can bring a wide range of effects and benefits; not all groups may benefit and
some may benefit to varying degrees. Some technologies solve one problem but create
others, or go on to solve a problem that we didn’t know it could or would.
Technology changes our lives, our culture and how we live. It has the ability to change the
course of history and daily life.
The public sometimes feels that technologies advance too rapidly and are not well
controlled. We want today to include discussions about what a good life is, and how we
want to live.
8
The day’s purpose was to discuss implications and influence of decision making with
technologies, and how the get technologies on policy maker’s agendas. Also, people were
asked to consider opportunities for taking societal input into decision making.
The day was not without challenges—one being the focus on nanotechnologies.
Nanotechnology itself can lead a huge range of applications. We want people to consider the
challenge of platform technologies in general.
Finally, the day is meant to facilitate a broad, inclusive conversation—admittedly a broad
exercise—but, hopefully, one with broad implications. People were encouraged to bring
knowledge, experience and expertise to the day; respect each other’s views; and bring
imagination and creativity to responses and outputs.
Session 1—Societal implications
Activity 1
Around the room, five different topics were posted, with some background information in
exhibits (see x). The topics were:
•
mobile/smart phones
•
genomics and genetic testing,
•
renewable energy technologies,
•
regenerative medicine
•
enabling assistive technologies]
•
New crops, new foods
[GM (genetically modified) crops and modified foods
People were asked to get up and walk around the room and read the comments that were
already submitted for the day (posted on the walls). They were asked to rate their interest in
the topics (on a scale of 1–5) and make additional comments. These sheets were not
collated for review.
Activity 2
Discussion. After reviewing the five topics and some background information, people were
asked to sit at a table with a topic that interested them, discuss societal implications about
the particular topic and record points raised on the paper provided (transcribed below).
GM crops and modified foods
How might this affect me?
Salt-tolerant crops for land that has become desert-like
Skills and economic returns
Health concerns: chemicals used, crops themselves
Environmental and contamination concerns
Issues of sustainability and food security
Risk
Economic concerns
9
Need good communication from the regulators and producers
Truthful labelling
Genomics and genetic screening
Technologies affect practices in complex ways
Cultural impacts—vary from place to place (e.g. some societies think nanotechnology is
great, others are hostile)
Gattaca (i.e. the movie)
What do markers mean?
Belief of basic information
Pre-natal disease marker testing
Ethics versus science
Use of genetic information
Value of life
Renewable energy sources
Support population with changing knowledge
Wind farms
Transmission and distribution
Energy storage
Algal fuels
Local electricity generation —> communities of interest
Who pays? Economic distribution/distortion of incentives
Allocation of government funds
Political process and lack of vision/strategy
Mobile/smart phones
Moving from ‘just a phone’ to a part of people’s lives
Augmented reality
Annoyance with lack of choice—‘locked in to plans’
Investment in learning a technology, then we are reluctant to change—becomes a limited
technology
Choice and access is most important—need more access
Why are people addicted to their phones? They allow people to work flexibly
What about those who choose not to have/can’t afford a device?
What is the technology displacing?
Borderless service delivery
Pitfalls—any health risks of using mobiles? Radio frequency? Lithium batteries
(environment) toxicity?
10
Is it safe to use mobiles everywhere?!
Regenerative medicine
Stem cells (specifically, human embryonic cells) are controversial. What are the public
perceptions?
Embryonic can be any [type of cell], adult stem cells can be a few. Not sure which one is
better
Using stem cells to understand diseases
Used for testing before going to human trials
Stem cells had early promises, high enthusiasm that may not have been lived up to
Now we have tangible things that the tech can produce (as opposed to the past where we
didn’t anticipate all the complexity)
Grants are key—funding determined by linking disease research with stem cells to curing a
specific thing
How realistic are our expectations about stem cells? Maybe we should re-evaluate what our
expectations are to see the value of this technology
How long is the stem cell scientific process?
The ethical debate is necessary to gain trust. Must link beliefs and knowledge to be effective.
Choosing the ‘right’ examples to influence public is key
Science communications may focus on the most extreme examples, which aren’t always the
best example and aren’t reflective of current state of research. Maybe have a
multidisciplinary lab (with communicators)
Scientists aren’t currently trained to communicate with the public
What are the success stories? This also depends on the audience.
Enabling assistive tech??
Balance between investing in new tech versus investing in new applications
With new stuff—do we focus too much on the negatives?
Sometimes with new tech public focuses on negatives
But depends on our regulation—difficult to get the balance right
(e.g. politics/money/risks/benefits)
Sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks (e.g. focusing on six major diseases, energy
efficiency, reducing waste); but concern when it’s used for minor things.
Question about labels—should be usable, should be internationally consistent (e.g.
occupational health and safety)
When people bring things in, there is concern about possible bans or commercial in
confidence. But there are rules.
I work in health service delivery and there are issues regarding innovation and delivery
change in service model
Implications on workforce—average age is 53
What are our needs? Education/training?
11
No inventory of nano-enabled devices; this is a concern; we need one
My sister is one of the most successful cochlear implantees. Prior [to the implant] it was like
living in a hole [for her]. The impact the technology has had on her life is amazing and
enormous. One of small examples of a successful technology invented and made in Australia
that has impact everywhere in the world (yet not classified as ‘nano’).
Terminology issue—‘device’, ‘medicine’?
Difficulty regarding how to introduce things like patents and so on
I work with service providers trying to implement enabling assistive technologies (rurally),
which means receiving something rather than nothing. This enables them to stay within their
community and not having to move to eastern seaboard
Developing software that can be emailed to remote consumers, which can be empowering.
It impacts on quality of life
More acceptance of nanotechnology in medicine or IT applications compared to foods
(reasons? no choice, labelling)
We’re developing innovative dental products, but we don’t want it on shelves without
education and transparency is central (labelling)
But can labelling go too far? For example, ads in the United States have huge disclaimers. It’s
about getting the balance right.
We need to hear what young people have to say about these technologies—student voice. It
is about empowering them to become active participants in society
Activity 3
Roundtable discussion: What should decision makers consider when making decisions about
enabling technologies? Discuss as a group (at one table). After several minutes, one person
will remain on the table to ‘host’ the conversation, and the others will get up and move to
another table. The host will go over what was discussed previously, and the group will carry
on with the conversation.
At the end—write down five societal considerations that your table has identified as the
most important.
Table 1
Values—personal ethics and how to assess?
Values—how to take into account diversity
Culture—economic influence
Culture—different knowledge bases
Technology could evolve
Do decision makers care?
Needs/wants constructed
Sometimes people don’t know what we need
Process—set of principles (e.g. precautionary?)
Apply as criteria, democratic, to emerging technologies
12
Ethics—weak basis—too plural (preferences etc.)
Core values could be established
Stop technologies being developed or adapt to societal values upstream
Community should be involved at early stage
Sustainability—environment, economic
Choice + access, ownership
Principles exist but are not applied
Equity
Set of rights (basic human rights: food, shelter, education and health)
Alternatives (low-tech, non-tech)
Social status and culture of using a particular technology
Management systems stand in for technologies
System integration is needed. How does technology fit with alternatives
Allow flexibility and creativity to innovate
Meets the greatest need
Where should public funding go for max benefit to society?
Benefits for users
Meeting promises, will it reach the whole target group or address the whole problem?
Market research is difficult, slow, unpredictable
Ethics committees—tend to block based on front page newspaper test
Ethics committees—narrow range of issues, difficult to look at big picture issues
Regulators also constrained to consider risk and not benefit
Privacy, surveillance
Collective choices?
Discrimination, effects on disadvantaged groups
Could discrimination be reduced? Groups with no voice. Policy influence (capacity)
Empower, build capacity
Trust
Top 5
Meets the greatest need
Sustainability
Effects on disadvantage groups
Fits into systems, including with alternatives
Empowers and builds capacity
13
Table 2
Potential for unequal distribution of the benefits of technologies
Consider end users—who are they?
Target market/audience ‘in mind’ is essential, but not always predictable
Regulation and enforcement
Environmental and disposal
Impact on workforce—change jobs and who? Consideration of all public sectors
Currently lack of consideration of breadth of users/targets
Priority is market—‘let the market sort’
Government policy needs to enable intellectual property (IP) to be used here but it is being
sold overseas+++
Effect of policy decisions that are technology focused rather than flexible to address breadth
Market major determinations
Drivers of lack of commercialisation is due to a small market [in Australia]
Most technology we use comes from overseas’ markets
Australia does have focus on biodiversity/sustainability
Example of lack of exploitation in Australia of solar industry
Difficult to predict outcomes of technologies
How do predict ‘pure science’ innovation/must continue $ for
Role private $ <—> impact on universities <—> fundamental role of universities
Needs framework to start the discussion regarding relevance of research and technology
development
How do we mix government and private funding?
Role of science communication and interaction with societal needs
Concerns regarding Australia’s ‘risk averse’ approach
Lack of long-term view of how technologies are developed—needs systems to facilitate
End of life/recyclable
Public health equity issues
Needs base versus profit
Open access (to information and technology)
Maybe criteria for technology developments that addresses social issues/problems
Underfunded by society if not on direct path not considered by the commercialisation
process
Role for government is to help companies to do next level of engagement (i.e. about social
impact)
Sustainability (ISO checklist includes ‘sustainable assessment’)
14
Many companies apply for grants are often unsuccessful; often more focused on
environment than social implications of technology
Protection of IP is critical
Commercialising IP often means going overseas (some international governments have an
agenda that is very focused on innovation, clustering expertise, linking of expertise)
Top 5
Sustainability
Government policy that enables technologies to be used in Australia (IP). How can
innovation occur outside this policy?
Basic framework to determine if the technology should go ahead—for example, a societal
framework
What is the real problem? Is the technology necessary or a quick fix?
Science communication—is it effective and correct?
Table 3
Decision makers: government, politicians, supply chain, investors, researchers, regulators,
end users/consumers, parents, ethics committees
Technology assessment (i.e. impact statement)
What are the needs and opportunities?
Control
Market pull versus research push
Level of trust
Uses outside of conventional use
Accessibility and affordability
Whole of the life cycle
Who benefits?
Risk/benefit
Safety of human health and the environment
We cannot regulate against idiots
Regulation and enforcement
Uncertainty
Overregulation can stifle innovation but needs to be considered early in the
commercialisation process
Effect on workforce
Ecological impacts
The stronger market muscle will often win (rather than the better product)
Are technologies developed with people in mind?
15
Spread of development makes it more difficult to regulate and enforce laws/rules
Top 5
Risk versus benefit
Customisation (i.e. the ability to customise for different end users)
Access to the technology
Sustainability
Political acceptability
Table 4
Who is the decision maker? Society?
Governments investing on implications of the technology at an earlier stage
Governments investing not just at the early-stage technical research and development
Applications/how the science is used
Ethics
Regulation
Understanding societal values
Reflecting cumulative impact from individuals
Understanding what we value as a community
How do the trends impact on … ?
Not just the technology, but think about the usage/outcome/applications (e.g. radio. It is
unpredictable and uncertain)
Have a real conversation about technology. Who owns it? What benefit to the Australian
community? IP?
How much science investment adds to the gross domestic product (GDP)? Poor dataset in
Australia, so can’t answer the question here. But in the European Union and United States,
investment significantly increase the GDP
Can’t pick winners—make strategic choices
Implement a framework that deals with unpredictability and uncertainty
Risks and dangers as well as benefits
Evidenced-based policy—science and technology informing government
Public opinion—long-term and short-term consequences (e.g. about the fishing trawler).
Need a debate
Top 5
Applications of technology—this is, what it can be used for?
Societal values—what do we value as a community?
Risks and returns (whole life-cycle analysis), including technical, social, environmental,
economic
16
Creating an evolving framework that tracks changes in that technology and how it is used
Public interest; whole-of-government approach
Table 5
Who are the decision makers? Policy makers? Scientists? Customers/consumers? Business?
Vague question
Policy makers: influence technology (e.g. funding) and its use/application. Also involved in
regulatory framework
Consumers: want assurance of safety, cost, wellbeing, equity
Science/scientists: application
People—all people, not discriminatory, all ages, users and non-users (e.g. future people)
Difference between technology and application
Problematic talking about ‘technology’ rather than ‘application of the technology’
Difficulty in predicting the future
Ensuring there is education
Shopping list: cost, applications, information, unknowns (e.g. risks, education,
fear/addressing fear, privacy)
Fundamental science = technology
But fundamental science? Now working within industry, so development and application
Applied science
How do we educate ‘the public’ when the ‘scientists’ still don’t understand and are still being
educated/learning (e.g. GM organisms—lack of proper education and information)
Fear, not in-depth discussion
How do we reconcile science and implications (e.g. law/legal implications)?
Industry and investment—how does it get returns?
Can we fast-track hugely beneficial technologies?
Inconsistencies with global regulations
What are the needs of society?
Could have community roundtables (e.g. with children)
Values very different
There are certain key principles though: accessibility, widget or useful, human rights and
wellbeing should be core, should serve everyone not just elite groups
Top 5
Intergeneration equity
Government constraints—real or self-imposed
Core principles (e.g. transparency and right to food)
Accessibility—equitable distribution to meet everyone’s needs
17
Participatory development with the community
Table 6
Technology isn’t something that ‘starts’? It is a combination of issues. The conversation can’t
be too specific—it needs to be generic.
How is technology addressing safety in design? Principle concern is safety.
Decision makers need to consider safety and bring this in earlier.
Also consider end-of-life. Does it into tip? Is it recyclable?
How do we assess the barriers?
How do we have the foresight for where things are going, or could go?
Spin-off technologies?
Social engineers/philosophers hired during technology development—do they help or
impede?
Ethical experts are good, but still is not a replacement for societal involvement
When people are excluded (e.g. GM foods), it creates resentment and backlash
All about communication with all the relevant players
Need to be worried about translation of science to technology and markets
Economics (IP, etc.) actually restricts sharing knowledge? Open source is the answer
It would be a culture shift for companies to move to open-source knowledge
Australia (compared to the United States Europe) is very risk-averse
Little interest here for backing open-source knowledge
How much is covered under current legislation?
Is there conflict within the NETS program? They need to promote both technology and
participation
Technology (i.e. the science) versus product (applications) (e.g. a spinning atom versus
nuclear energy/bomb)
Who is managing the risks? If we can’t trust the government, then who? People manage
risks (e.g. nuclear energy—there as risks, but the technology has also led to improved health,
such as cancer [radiation] treatment)
Policy—who benefits? Who owns? What is the long-term view? Multiple combinations of
technology. Currently short-term views. Big interests at play.
Implementation
Various groups involved so societal acceptance—ensure applied so that the benefit is far
greater than the risk
Huge divide between who makes decisions and the users
Open source easier in research than commercial setting
Who is a decision maker? Everyone! Government, industry, consumers, investors
18
Policy should act on broader behalf—trust that someone knows enough to protect public via
policy decisions
Communication—disruptive and positive in same message without ‘not risky’. Binary yes/no.
Need more real conversation
Top 5
Technology versus the product
Use, life cycle, end of life cycle
Don’t know what you don’t know
Cultural relevance
Future forecasting—identify and assess barriers
Table 7
If the benefits are overwhelmingly positive, could we consider fast-tracking some
innovations?
Considerations such as social inequality, equal access and good public health policy
Decision makers focusing on needs (based on evidence)
User-centred design and democratising design (co-creation)
Unintended consequences are difficult to factor in
Mobile phones tap into the value to communicate their success
There is a difference between risk and uncertainty
People will accept some risk if a clear benefit
Assessing risk should be down to the regulators
Nanotechnology and biotechnology companies use more risky products in the developing
world
Consumerism is a problem
Should Australian regulators consider global equity issues?
Current trans-Pacific partnership agreement is giving away our regulatory powers
Decision makers need to consider their own limitations
Regulators need to bring their own values to regulation
Things to consider intergenerational equity, government constrains itself, core principles
The rules are different for disruptive or derivative innovation in terms of people involvement
What is this question, really?
Involvement in technology, product or application/service?
In business, the prime issue is ‘What do my customers want?’
As a researcher, developing knowledge frontiers may create a technology
As a technologist, asking what do people ‘need’ versus ‘want’
Policy maker deciding on broader societal impact
19
Three (probably more) very different perspectives
GM crop issue—customer needs met but end user/consumer needs?
Top 5
Understanding needs
Understanding wants
Understanding value proposition
[group was unable to come up with five in the time allocated]
Lunch break
Activity 4 – 35’s
People sat down at the front of the room (chairs were arranged in a large circle). Each
participant was given a blue card. On the card, people were asked to write down their
answer to ‘What’s the question on your mind right now?’ Then the card was passed around,
and five people scored the question out of 7 (e.g. a not-so-great question would score a 1,
and great questions would get a 7). After five people have scored the question, a score out
of 35 was calculated. The questions and final scores are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Results of the “35’s” activity
Question
Score
/35
How should government regulate nanotechnology differently to how it has
regulated genetic engineering?
29
What models of governance can both enable innovation and ensure responsible
development of enabling technologies? (And be supported by both sides of
government!)
28
Who controls and benefits from emerging technologies?
27
What will be the next interesting comment in the discussions?
27
What are the outcomes of today going to be?
27
How can incentives of policy makers be adapted to encourage technology
development in Australia?
27
How are they (the organisers) going to do anything with this? What are the desired
outcomes?
27
What question are we trying to answer?
27
Will government be able to manage implementing a policy process that will handle
new technologies?
27
How to include societal implications of emerging technologies in government
regulation?
27
How can societal perceptions be addressed earlier in development and
commercialisation?
26
How can decision makers foresee unintended consequences of a technology?
26
Does NETS enable technology acceptance? Is it spin and promotion, or real
participation?
25
20
Question
Score
/35
Who is the ‘decision maker’, and when/how will it be discussed?
25
How do we turn what we did this morning into something actionable?
25
Do people really ‘get’ how technology develops?
23
What is the context of our deliberations when Australia is struggling to
commercialise in this area?
21
What are the top ten enabling technologies at the moment?
21
What are we going to use these questions for?
20
How to engage public on technology that puts pharmaceuticals in eggs?
20
What will we achieve today?
20
Is this process going to be a regulatory one?
20
Is it realistic for a workshop like this to come up with some agreed positions by the
end of the day?
19
Will it be musical chairs?
19
Are we able to pull together a coherent picture (even if opinions are diverse)?
19
What do you do with the soft approach to credibly deal with big issues in a way that
gets buy-in from all stakeholder groups?
18
Where do we want this to land?
18
Did I eat too much?
18
How will use the information I gather today?
18
Outcomes?
17
What is going to be the outcome of today’s forum?
17
Getting from [the] diversity [of people] in room to something useful?
17
How will this workshop change things?
16
How did you manage to put together such a diverse group of people?
15
Can Matthew really eat two pieces of cake?
14
What’s next?
11
What next?
7
21
Session 2—the decision-making context
Activity 5
People were asked, in groups, to develop a model for developing new technologies that
includes:
1. Development of a scheme that describes the process of designing, commercialising and
managing new technologies.
2. Highlighting the decision makers are along this process and what decisions they are
making.
3. Consideration of opportunities for societal consideration to be taken into account in
these decisions, show that is best done, and where engagement and dialogue could play
a role.
Photographs of schemes developed by the groups are shown below. Please contact the
department for verbal descriptions of these photographs.
Group 1 (with translation below)
22
23
Group 2
Group 3
24
Group 4
Group 5
25
Group 6 (with translation below)
26
Comment
Is this pathway [the process we are doing today] necessary? Are we creating unnecessary
baggage?
To this, someone asked, ‘What do you mean by “baggage”?’
The initial individual added, ‘I just mean are we adding complexity that isn’t necessary?’
In general, people disagreed with this comment.
Comment
‘People use products and services, not biotechnology itself. So how applicable is question 1
[above]?’
Wendy answered, ‘We want people to consider the whole process, from the technology to
the products’.
Comment
What is platform technology?
Wendy answered, ‘Technology that is applicable across multiple areas—for example,
nanotechnology creates many different products (cosmetics, building, etc.)’.
Each group was given 25 min to draft a model to address questions 1–3 (above).
One or two people remained at the table to ‘host or defend’ their model, whereas the rest
of the table got up and viewed other tables. Afterwards, people returned to their original
table and see how they felt about their model after viewing other models. Wendy
encouraged people to ‘try to stay away from your gang, and that it was really useful to have
different people with different expertise for this process’.
27
Recommendations
The final activity of the day was again group work at a table. Each table needed to answer the question, ‘What should the next step be for
considering societal implication in enabling technologies? Who should be responsible for this?’ Each group wrote down their answer at the top
of the sheet. Then the whole room got up and read each other’s answers and voted on them (strong agreement, agreement, neutral,
disagreement, strong disagreement, confusion). The answers and voting that resulted are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Answers to ‘What should the next step be for considering societal implication in enabling technologies?’ and corresponding
agreement/disagreement
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
Undertake an audit of the
introduction of existing
enabling technologies in
society to determine what
has worked and what hasn’t
to inform future processes
Strong agreement
5
And why it did/didn’t work, and international benchmarks
Agreement
5
Has this been done?
Neutral
10
What criteria for worked or not? Uptake? Market acceptance? Public acceptance?
Disagreement
8
Sounds useful
Strong disagreement
3
Development occurs continually—any audit would be of what’s existing (a snapshot)
Confusion
0
Learning from history and formulating the lessons is a critical step
Not realistic
What’s an ‘existing enabling technology’? This is a big (and eventually pointless) task
Who should audit? Why government?
Unrealistic
Unrealistic
Define ‘worked/not worked’ – commercial success? Not controversial?
This could highlight some of the complexities in determining the ultimate consequences of new
technologies
This is very, very complex
Is it possible?
A report from today leading
to a discussion paper which
should inform broader
Strong agreement
11
Is a paper actionable? How to effect change/impact?
Agreement
12
A discussion paper is a very big time commitment for reading and submission
Neutral
8
Agree! [with the above comment]
28
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
government and stakeholder
consideration of processes
for the development,
commercialisation and
management of enabling
technologies
Disagreement
2
We’ve been here and done that—nothing’s changed
Strong disagreement
0
Agree! [with the above comment]
Confusion
1
Understanding how innovation actually happens is critical
Do we need a discussion paper? For whom and why?
Could draw on the past 30 years of similar papers ...
Not just a report, but actions to support it
Actual action would be preferable
Concern that another report will gather dust
Needs clear, actionable outcomes
Important, but PLEASE not just another report
Doesn’t mean it will be read by those it is intended for
There should be an
independent body to
consider long-term impacts of
innovation (for example,
consider things like the longterm goals for Australia’s
technology industry?)
Strong agreement
11
No to the first bit, yes to the second bit
Agreement
8
Neutral
4
Only useful if advice is respected (e.g. OVRC?? in USA). The evidence is that evidence-based policy is often
not implemented, or is overturned
Disagreement
9
Strong disagreement
1
Confusion
1
Already lots of different organisations doing this—government departments, regulatory bodies, scientific
societies
Needs to be answerable to PMSEIC [Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council] or
Cabinet to ensure whole-of-government approach
Feel that there are orgs that do this (e.g. TGA)
Legislation already requires consideration of long-term effects
Foresighting can be valuable; setting goals for industry might be harder
Agreed [with the above comment]—foresighting body positive, but don’t know about ability or remit for
such a body to actually set goals for industry. Maybe assess framework of regulatory framework
Yes, like the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that did great work 1979–1991 for the US
Congress! An early dispassionate assessment of innovations could be a great boon
This is really important to help ensure that regulation keeps up with technological innovation and
adequately assesses risks
That the
deliberations/suggestions/
Strong agreement
3
Is today enough?
Agreement
19
Yes, but why wouldn’t it? see Henry tax report
29
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
conclusions from today are
taken seriously by the
decision makers (i.e. action is
taken). NETS-PACE should be
responsible
Neutral
12
Consider establishment of consultative group to consider societal implications for enabling technologies
Disagreement
0
Agreed but how to measure and ensure?
Strong disagreement
0
This is a non-action if there ever was one!
Confusion
0
Need follow on from NETS
That the community be
engaged at every stage of the
product/service development
process
Strong agreement
4
Which community? Public/users/etc.
Agreement
4
Not ‘every stage’ as you would end up with the same people from a small pool
Neutral
2
Not every stage—needs to be more strategic than this
Disagreement
18
Seems a bit impractical—but more engagement would be good
Strong disagreement
7
Confusion
1
Suspect this way be confusion between ‘community’ and the application of policy/criteria which inform
policy/$ that addresses consideration of ‘societal implications’ but is not a restrictive after an ‘issue
raising’ approach
If the community is affected, it should have a say
How?
Not enough community to go around, if you mean all products and every stage!
Too wide-ranging to be practical
Why should everyone examine my research and decide if it’s worthwhile or not?
Not a next step—rather an aspiration. Needs reframing
Nothing will ever happen
Every stage is neither necessary or realistic
There needs to be high-level representation of stakeholders at crucial decision-making steps
Just couldn’t work—industry would have major reservations
How? Why should those with nothing to lose or nothing at risk impact decisions that might otherwise
have public-wide benefits?
A framework to impart the
responsibility for societal and
ethical impacts upon the
researchers, individual or
institution
Strong agreement
7
Strict liability legislation would be good
Agreement
6
US program STIR [Socio-Technical Integration Research] is a good model
Neutral
5
Caution that it doesn’t stifle early-stage innovation
Disagreement
10
Don’t think the individual is relevant here
Strong disagreement
5
Ouch, that is very unfair. This already happens though ethics committees
30
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
Confusion
4
Constrains and stiles innovation. The vast majority operate ethically
Que?
Too many unintended consequences may arise for this to be meaningful
Need statement not be explained/defended
Let the researchers be creative!
What about the responsibility of the market/business?
Is there such a framework already in existence for each of the areas specified?
For DIISRTE to develop a
mechanism to give the public
access to authoritative,
balanced information about
the benefits, risks and
uncertainties of new
technologies
Strong agreement
13
They already do
Agreement
17
I don’t know about it and I work in the sector
Neutral
8
Uncertainty is critical. History shows we don’t know what will happen next
Disagreement
0
Strong disagreement
1
This what they supposedly do already but I’m concerned about the pro-industry bias and inaccuracy in
their current materials
Confusion
0
Longer overdue
This was recognised a couple of years ago as an issue. See SAC report and consultancy. But now what?
How do we enforce?
How to evaluate conflicting reports or studies? Independent perspectives?
What happens now that NRES-SAC has finished. How will the public have input?
Re-fund existing mechanisms
As long as issues are understood
Needs more definition
Probably not a bad idea, but just the first step towards a broader conversation
Invest in better, more
inclusive science policy and
public engagement capability,
in both government and civil
society. Federal government
to be responsible, but would
Strong agreement
11
Only useful with an understanding of how innovation actually happens
Agreement
21
Yes, ok—but it’s hard to bet public interested in science policy. Why should they be?
Neutral
3
Capability needs to account for risk (reward and be developed by those who actually bear the risk)
Disagreement
1
Agree [with the above comment]
Strong disagreement
0
Education of society about risks/benefits is crucial
31
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
include universities and other
groups
Confusion
0
Agree [with the above comment]
Increase participation from a
broad demographic
Strong agreement
3
Only if education is provided as part of the participation
Agreement
21
Agree [with the above comment]
Neutral
10
I will second that
Disagreement
4
Ned to identify a broad demographic— not just those already engaged
Strong disagreement
1
Only useful if they understand how innovation actually happens
Confusion
0
How? This is an objective, not an action
This is happening
Needs to be done in stages
Agree [with the above comment]
Agree [with the above comment]
Obviously! But how to ensure effective and outcome focused
Well done! You’ve set a high bar!
Yes (but how?)
Can be too complex without education, and not meaningful with education
Need more nongovernmental organisation and societal representation
What does this mean?
Great aspiration—but not a next step
Motherhood and apple pie, too. How would one disagree?
Change ‘enabling’ technology
to ‘emerging’ technology to
use more neutral language
Strong agreement
4
Not important and not urgent
Agreement
4
Agreed [with the above comment]
Neutral
8
Isn’t this semantics and a larger communication issue?
Disagreement
10
Should be consistent with other reports
Strong disagreement
7
Some have been around for years and not ‘emerging’
32
Statement
Agreement
No.
Additional comments
Confusion
3
But some of it is already out and proud!
this is actually important to the public
Yes—enabling is a very loaded term—it implies broad desirability, which isn’t always the case
There are more important thing than this distinction
? Still need to have oversight of ‘emerged’ on which there’s been NO societal considerations
Does it matter?
Agreed [with the above comment]
Semantics
Agreed [with the above comment]
Scope bloat
33
Wrap-up
The final activity was a general, open question—‘What were, if any, surprises or things
learned from the day?’. People were asked to volunteer their thoughts and answers
(transcribed below). People were also strongly encouraged to complete and submit a postevent survey (survey results are included in the appendix).
‘The day reinforced that there is more a push for enabling technologies overseas. Also, how
“silo-ed” each of us can be, and how we forget about respecting the rest of the spectrum.’
‘Even small business is keen to have regulation so that people know what they’re doing is
okay (large businesses as well).’
‘Not everyone was in agreement about what some of the terminology was – this sometimes
derailed discussions and reminded people that we are not from the same place/background.’
‘I feel that the experience could have been better if we had some younger people (e.g.
teenagers still in school) here. They can be very opinionated and they do have reasonable
views. They can also give a broad spectrum, and they will be impacted by some of these
technologies more than many of us will be.’
‘I am disappointed that there wasn’t much celebration – we only talked about problems, with
not much reference to our successes’.
‘Again, the idea of “siloing” and how good it was to hear from other areas.’
‘Maybe there is a need for more generic capacity for science policy in Australia. [We need] a
community that can help bring silos together. It is very complex and a multistage process
with a lot of feedback and influence.’
‘Crucial role of policy makers take for granted as bureaucrats. In the long run, policy makers
create the stage. If we can’t have creative policy makers that are committed to shaping the
stage, it is difficult for discussions like these to turn into reality.’
Good-bye and thank-you
Wendy admitted that these types of conversations are not easy. Overall, the day felt like a
start of a conversation, not a whole conversation.
Wendy also admitted that the day’s content, generally, is chaotic and unordered. Are people
happy to help craft the report?
The outputs will be taken seriously. Wendy can’t promise action, but it is the aim.
Comment
‘Are there enough people here to make a difference, so will the minister do something about
it?’
Wendy answered, ‘The Expert Forum legacy report, which will have a summary of this
workshop, will go to the minister. Beyond that there are multiple channels for influence. If
anyone has any suggestions about where to send it, please do let us know’.
34
Exhibitions Boards for Societal Implications session
Mobile / Smart phones - 3
What are the social
effects of being
constantly
connected?
How does it affect our
communication and
relationships, our work-life
balance?
What are some of
the privacy and
security issues?
How does it affect our
awareness of the world
around us, of ourselves
and of others?
35
36
37
38
39
40
Appendix C —Participant survey results
Question 1: How would you rate your current knowledge of nanotechnology and
biotechnology?
Pre-event
21 felt they had high to very high knowledge of enabling technologies
5 were neutral
9 felt they had low to very low knowledge of enabling technologies
Post-event
17 felt they had high to very high knowledge of enabling technologies
10 were neutral
4 felt they had low to very low knowledge of enabling technologies
Difference
6 people had increased knowledge of enabling technologies
21 people had the same knowledge of enabling technologies
1 person had decreased knowledge of enabling technologies
Question 2: How would you rate your awareness of societal implications of new
technologies?
Pre-event
17 felt they had high to very high awareness of enabling technologies
12 were neutral
5 felt they had low to very low awareness of enabling technologies
Post-event
21 felt they had high to very high awareness of enabling technologies
10 were neutral
Nobody (0) felt they had low to very low awareness of enabling technologies
Difference
7 people had increased awareness of enabling technologies
20 people had the same awareness of enabling technologies
1 person had decreased awareness of enabling technologies
Question 3: How would you rate your interest in finding out more about enabling
technologies?
Pre-event
26 felt they had high to very high interest in learning about enabling technologies
8 were neutral
41
Nobody (0) felt they had low to very low interest in learning about enabling technologies
Post-event
22 felt they had high to very high interest in learning about enabling technologies
8 were neutral
1 felt they had low to very low interest in learning about enabling technologies
Difference
1 people had increased interest in learning about enabling technologies
20 people had the same interest in learning about enabling technologies
7 person had decreased interest in learning about enabling technologies
Question 4: How would you rate your knowledge about mobile/smart phones?
Pre-event
13 felt they had high to very high knowledge of mobile/smart phones
16 were neutral
6 felt they had low to very low knowledge of mobile/smart phones
Post-event
13 felt they had high to very high knowledge of mobile/smart phones
12 were neutral
4 felt they had low to very low knowledge of mobile/smart phones
Difference
4 people had increased knowledge of mobile/smart phones
20 people had the same knowledge of mobile/smart phones
2 people had decreased knowledge of mobile/smart phones
Question 5: How would you rate your knowledge about genomics and genetic testing?
Pre-event
11 felt they had high to very high knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
10 were neutral
14 felt they had low to very low knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
Post-event
10 felt they had high to very high knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
8 were neutral
11 felt they had low to very low knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
Difference
6 people had increased knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
42
18 people had the same knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
2 people had decreased knowledge of genomics/genetic testing
Question 6: How would you rate your knowledge about regenerative medicine?
Pre-event
11 felt they had high to very high knowledge of regenerative medicine
10 were neutral
14 felt they had low to very low knowledge of regenerative medicine
Post-event
8 felt they had high to very high knowledge of regenerative medicine
7 were neutral
14 felt they had low to very low knowledge of regenerative medicine
Difference
4 people had increased knowledge of regenerative medicine
19 people had the same knowledge of regenerative medicine
3 people had decreased knowledge of regenerative medicine
Question 7: How would you rate your knowledge about GM crops and modified foods?
Pre-event
19 felt they had high to very high knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
6 were neutral
10 felt they had low to very low knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
Post-event
17 felt they had high to very high knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
2 were neutral
10 felt they had low to very low knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
Difference
2 people had increased knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
19 people had the same knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
4 people had decreased knowledge of GM crops and modified foods
Question 8: How would you rate your knowledge about renewable energy sources?
Pre-event
17 felt they had high to very high knowledge of renewable energy sources
11 were neutral
7 felt they had low to very low knowledge of renewable energy sources
43
Post-event
14 felt they had high to very high knowledge of renewable energy sources
7 were neutral
8 felt they had low to very low knowledge of renewable energy sources
Difference
3 people had increased knowledge of renewable energy sources
17 people had the same knowledge of renewable energy sources
6 people had decreased knowledge of renewable energy sources
Question 9: Do you anticipate that enabling technologies will have positive impacts on
society?
Pre-event
25 felt they had high to very strong agreement in positive impacts
5 were neutral
3 felt they had low to very strong disagreement in positive impacts
Post-event
24 felt they had high to very high confidence in positive impacts
6 were neutral
Nobody (0) felt they had low to very low confidence in positive impacts
Difference
5 people had increased confidence in positive impacts
18 people had the same confidence in positive impacts
2 person had decreased confidence in positive impacts
Question 10: Do you anticipate that enabling technologies will have negative impacts on
society?
Pre-event
12 felt they had high to very high confidence in negative impacts
7 were neutral
14 felt they had low to very low confidence in negative impacts
Post-event
6 felt they had high to very high confidence in negative impacts
9 were neutral
15 felt they had low to very low confidence in negative impacts
Difference
3 people had increased confidence in negative impacts
44
14 people had the same confidence in negative impacts
8 people had decreased confidence in negative impacts
Question 11: Do you anticipate that the negative impacts of enabling technologies will
outweigh the positives?
Pre-event
5 felt they had high to very high agreement
5 were neutral
23 felt they had low to very low agreement
Post-event
1 felt they had high to very high agreement
7 were neutral
20 felt they had low to very low agreement
Difference
3 people had increased their belief that the negative impacts would outweigh the positives
16 people had the same belief
3 person had decreased their belief that the negative impacts would outweigh the positives
Question 12: Do you anticipate that technology development can solve most of society’s
current problems?
Pre-event
7 felt they had high to very high confidence in technology to solve societal problems
10 were neutral
15 felt they had low to very low confidence in technology to solve societal problems
Post-event
5 felt they had high to very high confidence in technology to solve societal problems
16 were neutral
8 felt they had low to very low confidence in technology to solve societal problems
Difference
4 people had increased confidence in technology to solve societal problems
16 people had the same confidence in technology to solve societal problems
5 person had decreased confidence in technology to solve societal problems
45
Question 13: Do you think that in policy and research decisions, enough attention is given
to societal implications?
Pre-event
4 had high to very high confidence that enough consideration was given to societal
implications
12 were neutral
18 felt they had low to very low confidence that enough consideration was given to societal
implications
Post-event
3 felt they had high to very high confidence that enough consideration was given to societal
implications
7 were neutral
19 felt they had low to very low confidence that enough consideration was given to societal
implications
Difference
2 people had increased confidence in the level of consideration given to societal implications
17 people had the same confidence in the level of consideration given to societal
implications
7 people had decreased confidence in the level of consideration given to societal
implications
Question 14: Do you think that today’s workshop will affect your views on enabling
technologies?
Pre-event
12 felt they had high to very high confidence that their views would change
18 were neutral
4 felt they had low to very low confidence that their views would change
Post-event
1 felt they had high to very high confidence that their views had changed
15 were neutral
14 felt they had low to very low confidence that their views had changed
Difference
None (0 people) had increased confidence that their views had changed
11 people had the same
16 people had decreased confidence that their views had changed
46
Question 15: Do you think that today’s workshop will affect the way you think about
enabling technologies?
Pre-event
9 felt they had high to very high confidence that their way of thinking would change
17 were neutral
8 felt they had low to very low confidence that their way of thinking would change
Post-event
9 felt they had high to very high confidence that their way of thinking had changed
10 were neutral
11 felt they had low to very low confidence that their way of thinking had changed
Difference
2 people had increased confidence that their way of thinking would change
19 people felt the same
5 people had decreased confidence that their way of thinking would change
Question 16: Do you think that today’s workshop will affect your future actions, decisions
and choices?
Pre-event
11 felt they had high to very high confidence that their future behaviour would change
17 were neutral
6 felt they had low to very low confidence that their future behaviour would change
Post-event
6 felt they had high to very high confidence that their future behaviour would change
12 were neutral
12 felt they had low to very low confidence that their future behaviour would change
Difference
1 person had increased confidence that their future behaviour would change
14 people thought their actions would be unchanged
11 people had decreased confidence that their future behaviour would change
Question 17: Do feel that you were made to feel included in today’s dialogue?
Post-event
28 had high to very high belief that they felt included
1 were neutral
Nobody (0 people) had low to very low belief that they felt included
47
Question 18: Do feel that there was a diversity of views present at today’s dialogue?
Post-event
29 had high to very high belief that there was a diversity of views present
1 was neutral
Nobody (0) had low to very low belief that there was a diversity of views present
Question 19: Do feel that the information presented was biased?
Post-event
2 had high to very high belief that information presented at the event was biased
6 were neutral
22 had low to very low belief that information presented at the event was biased
Question 20: Do feel that the event was well facilitated?
Post-event
25 had high to very high belief that the event was well facilitated
4 were neutral
1 had low to very low belief that the event was well facilitated
Question 21: Do feel that the event was well organised?
Post-event
23 had high to very high belief that the event was well organised
6 were neutral
1 had low to very low belief that the event was well organized
Survey Questions – written responses
What are your views on the effects of new technologies such as nanotechnology and
biotechnology on society?
Both can play potentially useful roles, but the full impacts on human health, the
environment and society needs to be considered and should inform what technologies are
adopted.
The marketable technologies should be delinked from science. The community should be
enabled to say ‘no’ to some uses of new technology, not only on ethical grounds. Put the
community in charge! Set of principles/decision procedure. Core human rights. Systems vs
technology .Values. Culture. Equity/access. Waste. No widgets
Need new technologies but also need to educate and increase awareness about the benefits
and value so that society can accept and embrace
Not sure, but what I’ve read indicates that these technologies could be game changers
Great opportunity, needs to be managed
48
Generally will have a positive effect on society, but emerging nations and lower income
nations must make a case to be included in many of the latest developments.
Technology has a ‘Janus face’ (duality) – new solutions + new problems! The technologies we
use are characteristic of the society in which we live – they thus have enormous and very
complex effects
They can be used to significantly improve quality of life
It depends on the needs that are being addressed and the effects these technologies have
on improving quality of life, providing access to all (equity issues), who many benefit
regardless of whether they can afford it.
Strong communication education programs necessary to maximise chance that decision
making is well informed.
Following the workshop, what are your views on the effects of new technologies such as
nanotechnology and biotechnology on society?
Both can play potentially useful roles, but the full impacts on human health, the
environment and society needs to be assessed before commercial release
Participation will bring greatest satisfaction for all!
Need to be able to understand, educate and communicate the benefits and risks of these
technologies to society
I learnt nothing new about these technologies, only the social evaluation process
Highlighted range of issues – but more so, difficulty in what to do and who should do it
Not all are fathomable
No change of views
Still unsure and want to explore more. Will do more of this exploring as a result of this day.
same
Still quite uninformed – but that from a low base.
I have a more advanced understanding of societal concerns. Society needs to be assessed
before commercial release
It’s exciting; however it’s a work in progress
What do you expect to get out of today’s discussion?
A sharing of ideas and knowledge. A clear idea of how our input will be used.
Greater understanding of the diverse opinions on enabling technologies.
Not sure!
Insight into drivers of public perception
More awareness about other types of technology advances
Knowledge and increased awareness
Not sure
A greater awareness of not only emerging technologies but how these are treated/dealt
with at this level of government
49
Further insight
Better understanding of different perspectives of the above questions!
New ways of thought
Ideas
Better understanding of how to promote new technologies and the hurdles that need to be
addressed
Cross-sector viewpoints, a greater awareness of what is occurring within the enabling
technologies
In what ways has today’s discussion changed your views? In what ways might it affect your
decisions and actions?
N/A
A more benign view of the motivations of some people in other sites
It hasn’t changed them
Highlighted for me that there are widely varying views, but also that there is a level of
consensus that there are/will be societal implications – and therefore that these need to be
taken into account
Better understanding of decision makers
Societal implications are generally understood and often are under consideration. These
issues seem to be much bigger than any ‘technology’ or application
This is a leading question … it didn’t change my views
The session reinforced the importance of policy makers as those who create and implement
the ‘community imaginary’ of science’s interaction with science research and priorities and
the utilisation of policy
More awareness of need to engage at every step of the process, need to better
communicate knowledge of enabling technologies to the community
It’s reinforced our company core principles and what we stand for
What was your overall impression of the workshop today?
Well organised but very industry dominated
Broad range of topics so felt that they were dealt with superficially.
Interesting
More of the same. Well intentioned. Hope it’s the beginning of something more inclusive.
Interesting – hope DIIRSTE feel it achieved its aims
Good – very difficult issue we/govt/industry/community need to grapple with and keep
talking about
I did not comprehend the function of the workshop
Well run and a great group
Good
Far more valuable that what I anticipated
50
excellent
Explanations of activities require more clarity, as people were often confused
What improvements would you suggest?
Some key terms needed to be defined, to clarify the instructions given
Better NGO and community participation – industry was overrepresented
I agree with the proposal for greater age diversity. Also people from different social classes
Clarify terminology up front – acknowledging concerns about terminology and areas of
disagreement
definitions
Broader selection of people, eg students.
Facilitated discussion that encouraged exchange of ideas
Harness diversity – too little shared knowledge, values, etc. different structure
What were the best aspects?
Diversity of participants
The facilitation and food were great
Diversity of people/views.
Good lunch, but as usual, over-catered
Speaking with others and listening to their views/experience
Being able to discuss issues openly with people from different areas/viewpoints
The facilitator, Keith – ran smooth and clear
Exploring the diversity of views
Discussions
Networking; good discussions
The diversity of participants
The diversity and good will of the participants
Diversity of views
51
Appendix D – Societal considerations for enabling technologies
Environment
What direct effects may the technology have on the environment? (pollution, toxicity,
hazards, ecosystem disturbance, effects on water, land, biodiversity)
Will the technology affect the amenity of the environment for people?
Will the technology facilitate sustainable resource, energy and land use?
Basic rights and freedoms
Will the technology reduce anyone’s access to basics such as food, shelter,
healthcare?
Will the technology provide for or erode privacy, independence, informed choice, and
participation?
Will it enhance the basic rights, freedoms and quality of life of the most
disadvantaged in society?
Knowledge, values and emotions
How might the technology change basic understandings, moral standards, individual
and group identities and status?
What hopes and fears, expectations and visions for the future is the technology likely
to create?
How will the technology construct needs and wants?
Practices
How is the technology likely to influence how things are done? E.g. work, leisure,
learning, communication, social life, civic participation?
How is it likely to affect use of energy and resources, food production and land use,
and systems such as healthcare?
How might the technology contribute to existing trends and problems?
Does the technology increase flexibility, creativity and choice and how does it affect
human capacity? Can it be customised to different needs?
Community
How does the technology affect equity within and between communities (including
future generations)?
Does the technology contribute to community development, build capacity and
empower disadvantaged groups?
How does the technology affect the workforce, including jobs, skills and education
levels?
What demographic changes might it cause?
What might be the effects on culture, public health, civic participation and social
cohesion?
Political and economic structures
How is the technology likely to influence the economy, markets and industry
structure? How might that affect our position in a global setting?
What new policy, regulations, funding arrangements, IP and infrastructure are likely to
be created/needed?
What is the interaction between the technology and major societal problems? How
important/trivial is the application?
What affects might the technology have on democracy and democratic participation?
Who owns the technology and how much accountability and transparency is there in
its design and application?
52