Jason Delborne

Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology

This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on democratic engagement through an exploration of citizen participation in two citizen consensus conferences on nanotechnology, one held in 2005 and the second in 2008. We analyze the factors that motivate citizens to participate formally in debates about emerging “high technologies” and consider demographic and related characteristics of the participants in these two consensus conferences and the reasons they provided for participating. We suggest that in an era in which the barriers to civic engagement—most especially time—are large for many citizens, significant incentives are likely to affect participation. These incentives may be internal (e.g. a personal interest in a topic or an investment in a policy outcome) or external (e.g. money). In this context, we critique the aim of recruiting “blank slate” participants for consensus conferences and other deliberative democratic forums.

Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the internet in consensus conferences

Consensus conferences have functioned well in small, relatively homogeneous countries such as Denmark. In the geographically sprawling and socially diverse United States, however, meaningful citizen deliberation and decision-making on science and technology depends upon the ability to bring more participants “into the room.” The National Citizens’ Technology Forum, held in March 2008, responded to this need by integrating panels of citizens from multiple US cities in structured face-to-face and online deliberation. We analyze the success of this experiment by focusing on the experience of participants during the online deliberation component. We conclude with recommendations for future organizers of online deliberation, focusing on the benefits of combining synchronous and asynchronous engagement and improving facilitation practice and software capabilities.

Imagining Ordinary Citizens? Conceptualized and Actual Participants for Deliberations on Emerging Technologies

In this paper, we explore conceptualizations of ‘ordinary’ citizens common in public engagement forums on emerging technologies and assumptions from deliberative theory that ordinary people are more likely to be appropriately ‘changed’ through deliberative processes facilitated by experts. Looking at a large US public forum event [the National Citizens Technology Forum (NCTF)], we asked: What were the goals for this exercise and how did they shape conceptualizations of ordinariness and representativeness? Whose goals and conceptualizations were they? Were the engaged citizens ordinary and representative—and were they changed by the exercise? Our exploration revealed that exercise organizers conceived of ordinary citizens as people lacking science and technology backgrounds, without advocacy or business connections to the technologies at hand, and demographically reflecting the US population. Exercise materials also implied that ideal ordinary participants would lack strong opinions and emotions about these technologies. Actual NCTF participants, however, tended to be more educated, have higher incomes, and to be more liberal than the US public, and participants from all backgrounds had a range of relevant knowledge, experiences and opinions about science and technology. They were changed by the exercise in complex and conflicting ways—based as much on their own knowledge and reflections on relational dynamics as on exercise processes, interactions with experts, and information provided in the exercise. We argue that inadequately explored ideas about ordinary citizens are highly problematic. Further, invisible assumptions about what is ‘normal’ among experts and status quo institutions serve to reify the lay–expert divide that engagement exercises are intended to counteract.

Precaution and governance of emerging technologies

Precaution can be consistent with support of science Precautionary approaches to governance of emerging technology call for constraints on the use of technology whose outcomes include potential harms and are characterized by high levels of complexity and uncertainty. Although articulated in a variety of ways, proponents of precaution often argue that its essential feature is to require more evaluation of a technology before it is put to use, which increases the burden of proof that its overall effect is likely to be beneficial. Critics argue that precaution reflects irrational fears of unproven risks—“risk panics” (1)—and would paralyze development and use of beneficial new technologies (1, 2). Advocates give credence to this view when they suggest that precaution leads necessarily to moratoria (3). Progress in the debate over precaution is possible if we can reject the common assumption that precaution can be explained by a simple high-level principle and accept instead that what it requires must be worked out in particular contexts. The 2016 report from the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) on gene drive research (4) illustrates this position. The report shows both that precaution cannot be rejected out of hand as scaremongering and that meaningful precaution can be consistent with support for science.

Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference

During traditional consensus conferences, organizers control the formal information available to participants—by compiling structured background materials and recruiting expert panelists. Less formally, however, participants are encouraged to bring their own experiences into the deliberations, and in doing so, they often seek outside information. We explore this heretofore understudied phenomenon of information seeking during a deliberative event: the U.S. National Citizens’ Technology Forum (2008), which addressed the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science on the potential development of human-enhancement technologies. Through interviews with participants and observation of in-person and online deliberations, we identify outside information-seeking strategies and motivations. Our study demonstrates that conceptualizing models of deliberation as standalone settings of communication exchange ignores the reality of the complex information environment from which deliberative participants draw when making sense of technical issues. Future citizen deliberations must incorporate outside information seeking in the design of the exercises.

Constructing Audiences in Scientific Controversy

Scientists, their allies, and opponents engage in struggles not just over what is true, but who may validate, access, and engage contentious knowledge. Viewed through the metaphor of theater, science is always performed for an audience, and that audience is constructed strategically and with consequence. Insights from theater studies, the public understanding of science, and literature on boundary work and framing contribute to a proposal for a framework to explore the construction of audiences during scientific controversy, consisting of three parameters: history, composition, and role. Applying this framework to the controversy over the presence of genetically modified maize in Mexico demonstrates how multiple and contested audiences form during a scientific controversy. Different scientific “productions” construct distinct or overlapping audiences; audiences constructed at one time become “easy recruits” for later stages of the controversy; and the various roles cast for different audiences showcase strategies for building scientific power and reflect assumptions about the capacity for publics to participate in the governance and production of science.

A roadmap for gene drives: using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context

ABSTRACTThe deployment of gene drives is emerging as an alternative for protecting endangered species, controlling agricultural pests, and reducing vector-borne diseases. This paper reports on a workshop held in February 2016 to explore the complex intersection of political, economic, ethical, and ecological risk issues associated with gene drives. Workshop participants were encouraged to use systems thinking and mapping to describe the connections among social, policy, economic, and ecological variables as they intersect within governance systems. In this paper, we analyze the workshop transcripts and maps using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to categorize variables associated with gene drive governance and account for the complexities of socio-ecological systems. We discuss how the IAD framework can be used in the future to test hypotheses about how features of governance systems might lead to certain outcomes and inform the design of research programs, public engagement, and...

Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives

‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’ Jason Delborne, Jennifer Kuzma, Fred Gould, Emma Frow, Caroline Leitschuh & Jayce Sudweeks To cite this article: Jason Delborne, Jennifer Kuzma, Fred Gould, Emma Frow, Caroline Leitschuh & Jayce Sudweeks (2018): ‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’, Journal of Responsible Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413

Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology

Frameworks that govern the development and application of novel products, such as the products of synthetic biology, should involve all those who are interested or potentially affected by the products. The governance arrangements for novel products should also provide a democratic mechanism that allows affected parties to express their opinions on the direction that innovation does or does not take. In this paper we examine rationales, obstacles and opportunities for public participation in governance of novel synthetic biology products. Our analysis addresses issues such as uncertainties, the considering of alternative innovations, and broader social and environmental implications. The crucial issues in play go beyond safety alone, to include contending social values around diverse notions of benefit and harm. The paper highlights the need for more inclusive social appraisal mechanisms to inform governance of Synthetic Biology and alternative products, and discusses a few practical methods to help achieve this goal.