+

Wacky Science or Responsible Innovation?  Public Perceptions of Geoengineering (Scientists).

Dr Karen Parkhill, Human Geography Lecturer in SENRGyk.parkhill@bangor.ac.uk @DrKAParkhill @BUGeography

+Overview

What is geoengineering?

Why were we doing research with publics on ‘theoretical’ putative geoengineering technologies? Stagegate

Responsible innovation and analysis

Public perceptions of scientists Intentions Responsibility Impacts Role of publics in RI

Conclusions

+Geoengineering Definition

“deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Royal Society, 2009: 1).

(Vaughan & Lenton, 2011)

+Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering

Two projects funded from EPSRC/NERC Geoengineering sandpit IAGP SPICE

Modeling & 1-2km Test-bed

Stagegate

+Methods

Case site areas: 3 x pilots Cardiff 3 x main (Norwich, Nottingham, Cardiff)

Sample Diverse sample: gender, age, ethnicity, SEG, educational

level

+Responsible Innovation?

Dimensions of RI Anticipatory – describing & analysing (un)intended impacts

Reflective – ethically reflecting on narratives of expectation & the social transformation these might bring

Deliberative – opening up visions/impacts etc. to others, inviting & listening to wider perspectives

Responsive – using reflexivity to influence the direction & pace of the innovation process

+Data Analysis Questions

1. What do varied publics believe are the intentions & motivations (of scientists, governments etc.) behind the development of geoengineering techniques?

2. What do publics believe are the desired outcomes of geoengineering techniques?

3. Do publics believe there are wider products/impacts of geoengineering? What of (scientific) uncertainties?

4. Who do publics feel is responsible for responding to climate change & investigating geoengineering? What role, if any, do publics feel they have in the RI of geoengineering?

+Analysis – Intentions

Scientists/Engineers: Innovators working for the common good

‘Science is an icon of modern society…”science” (in general) enjoys high public esteem & interest in surveys yet suffers apathy and worse in many specific encounters’ (Wynne, 1991: 112).

“Motive. Why [do] people do it? … It’s not going to be cost free when you first start doing this. You can see an altruistic motive there, but people will do these things if there is a financial incentive, if there is a reason for doing it, if governments pay them to do it, if they can get a spin off from it…then people are starting to mess with our lives for their financial benefit” (Male, Nottingham)

+Analysis II - Responsibility

Social contract between publics & innovators

Modified moral hazard: innovators encouraged to concentrate on technical ‘fixes’ not mitigation? Limited skills base – geoengineering or mitigation

Innovators ensure their ideas are safe and safely developed Impacts Incremental development stages Freely sharing knowledge (successes & failures)

+Analysis III - Impacts

Limits to what is knowable

Tests able to be scaled up? “…it’s all still only on trial isn’t it? And research, we don’t

really know what would happen on such a big scale, they might have done little bits…But when they start doing it [cloud brightening] with these boats…and throwing up all that, you never know what might happen” (Iowerth, Cardiff).

+Analysis IV – The role of publics

Limited input due to complexity of ‘extraordinary’ tech?William – No we need to do this [investigate geoengineering] but the answers I think are a bit – well they’re beyond me anyway.

Frank – Yeah, I don’t think the answers can be done by a layman. That’s gonna take someone more intelligent than me to sort it out. (Norwich)

Worried about being held accountable if things go wrong.

Limited ability to influence development trajectories or governance decisions:“I just don’t think my opinions would matter and things are going to happen whether I dislike it or not” (Ruby, Nottingham)

Despite difficulties, most participants did feel that publics should be engaged with on a continual basis.

+Conclusion Participants did not want to stifle innovation BUT

concerned good intentions of innovators usurped by politics/business.

They wanted (continued) humility to recognise - “asymmetry between what is intended and what is merely brought about” (Jamieson, 1996).

Make explicit the process of RI and publics (necessary) role Scientific citizens (Irwin, 1995), philosophers, moralisers,

governors, regulators, ethicists, and much more.

+Acknowledgements

Nick Pidgeon, Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan

EPSRC & NERC (IAGP – EP/1014721/1)

US National Science Foundation (SES 0938099)

IAGP advisory panel (www.iagp.ac.uk)

Merryn Thomas & Joel Burton

SPICE team – esp. Kirsty Kuo

Publics

+References

Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., and Guston, D., (2013), ‘A framework of responsible innovation’, in : R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz (Eds), Responsible Innovation, London: Wiley, pp. 27-50.

Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., Corner, A. and Vaughan, N., (2013).‘Deliberation and Responsible Innovation: a Geoengineering Case Study’, in: R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz (Eds), Responsible Innovation, London: Wiley, pp. 219-239.

Parkhill, K. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops. Working Paper. Cardiff: School of Psychology, Cardiff University. Available at: http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/spice.pdf

Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K., Corner, A. J. and Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3, 451-457.

Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T., (2011), A review of climate geoengineering proposals, Climate Change, 109, 745-790.

Wynne, B., (1991), ‘Knowledges in context’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(1), pp. 111-121.