Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies:

Social considerations for decision making about new platform technologies

Report from a deliberative workshop

held 4 Oct 2012, Rendezvous Grand Hotel, MelbournePrepared by Wendy Russell, DIICCSRTE

with assistance from Carrie DeHaan, Biotext

Executive SummaryThis interactive workshop considered societal implications of technologies and how they can be taken into account in decision-making. The workshop considered how technologies affect people’s work, lifestyles, relationships and culture, and values such as equity, privacy and choice; and whether these effects can be considered and anticipated when decisions are made about technology development. The particular focus was enabling technologies like biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology – platform technologies that have the potential to transform a range of sectors and industries, and to bring significant social, economic and environmental changes.

This workshop used a very broad framing based on societal implications to initiate an opening up of debates about enabling technologies beyond narrow risk/benefit approaches and to broaden the range of issues usually considered in formal and informal assessments of emerging technologies. Participation was diverse, but dominated by ‘experts’, decision makers and opinion formers rather than reflecting a cross-section of the wider community. As such, it should be considered an exploratory exercise, a first step in a pathway to developing more socially informed means of assessing and governing technological developments.

The workshop pointed to a range of societal effects of new technologies, which can be understood to operate at a number of levels, affecting:

the quality and amenity of the physical environment

basic human rights and freedoms

knowledge, values and emotions

practices

community, its structure and function

and political and economic structures

A set of questions emerging from the workshop provides a tool for a more comprehensive consideration of societal implications by technology developers and decision makers (Appendix D).

Some of the major challenges to societal assessment that the group identified include the uncertainty and unpredictability of technological development and its effects. Technology development is extremely complex, involves a range of decision makers, and is spread over space (beyond national borders) and time. There is also uncertainty about how technological developments are translated in society, with users and the social context having significant roles in shaping technologies and their contributions.

Related to this is the fact that technological development takes place in a global context. Many societal effects come from technological products from overseas, and many Australian products are destined for export. Societal implications need to be considered at a global level but there are considerable challenges associated with this. There was also a question of whose role it should be to consider societal implications and how this might fit in the decision making context.

The discussion of the decision making context highlighted the complexity of the innovation system, and the multiple decisions and decision makers who influence it.

Some suggestions were put forward for sites where societal engagement could provide input and societal considerations could be taken into account:

In setting research priorities and strategies

In research funding priorities

In research decisions and processes

In the identification of problems and needs

In industry R&D decisions and business planning

In investment decisions (cf corporate social responsibility?)

When assessing technical feasibility (social feasibility?)

As part of translation

In market research

In design, innovation and product development processes

In product testing

By broadening current assessment (e.g. OH&S, environmental, life cycle assessments) and regulation

Key recommendations emerging from the workshop were (verbatim):

1) Invest in better, more inclusive science policy and public engagement capability, in both government and civil society. Federal government to be responsible, but would include universities and other groups

2) DIISRTE to develop a mechanism to give the public access to authoritative, balanced information about the benefits, risks and uncertainties of new technologies

3) A discussion paper from today which should inform broader government and stakeholder consideration of processes for the development, commercialisation and management of enabling technologies

Technological development, despite (or because of) its central role in social development and economic prosperity, is subject to latent public concerns. The response of the public is conditional on a range of factors, including characteristics of the technologies that emerge, and features of the systems that design, commercialise and regulate emerging technology products.

Responses to public concerns that focus on risks and risk management and on providing one-way information to consumers about new technologies have generally failed to allay these concerns. This may be, in part, because these responses do not address issues of technologies’ multiple effects on society, how these effects are understood and managed, and who takes responsibility for them. Reactions of citizens in engagements such as this one suggest that the trust and confidence in technological progress of those community members with concerns would benefit from more thorough engagement with these issues. This forum may provide a first step towards this.

Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies Workshop

Thursday 4 October 2012, 9:30–4:30pm, Rendezvous Grand Hotel, Melbourne

Event description and organisationThis interactive workshop considered societal implications of technologies and how they can be taken into account in decision-making. The workshop considered how technologies affect people’s work, lifestyles, relationships and culture, and values such as equity, privacy and choice; and whether these effects can be considered and anticipated when decisions are made about technology development. The particular focus was on enabling technologies like biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology – platform technologies that have the potential to transform a range of sectors and industries, and to bring significant changes, socially, economically and environmentally.

Objectives

to suggest ways in which decision making about enabling technologies could be more socially responsible and responsive

to provide a set of societal considerations for assessment of developments in enabling technologies

to raise awareness of social aspects of enabling technology futures and of the decision making context

to consider the contributions that engagement and dialogue could make to enabling technology assessment and decision making

Approximately 50 people from a range of sectors and interests participated in the workshop. These included representatives of businesses, industry associations and clusters, and industry consultancies; federal, state and local government agencies including regulators; unions, environmental and consumer health organisations; scientists working on nanotechnology and biotechnology and related fields and science associations; social researchers, futures and innovation experts, public health specialists, science communicators, teachers and ordinary citizens. The group ranged in age between 23 and 72, with little ethnic diversity (only one person with English as a second language) and there were roughly equal numbers of women and men.

The workshop was an awareness-raising and decision-based dialogue project conducted under the STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways) framework by the National Enabling Technologies Strategy – Public Awareness and Community Engagement (NETS-PACE) program in collaboration with the NETS Expert Forum. It was intended to add a social dimension to a study entitled Enabling Technology Futures—A Survey of the Australian Technology Landscape, commissioned by the Expert Forum1 and to directly inform the NETS Expert Forum’s

1http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategy/ Documents/EnablingTechnologyFutures.pdf

legacy report2. It was also an opportunity to open up new avenues of consideration amongst a range of decision makers.

Independent facilitation of the discussion was provided by Keith Greaves, Chit Chat, Melbourne, with assistance from Sally Abbott, Wendy Russell and Daria Lonsdale. Notes were taken during the workshop by Carrie DeHaan, and photographs by Kate Butler.

The project involved a working group with a mix of interests and expertise who assisted with the design of the engagement and establishing the scope and objectives and provided oversight, as well as participating in the workshop.

Working Group

Wendy Russell, NETS-PACE, project manager

Kristin Alford, Bridge8, NETS Expert Forum

Greg Simpson, CSIRO Materials Science & Engineering, NETS Expert Forum

Paul Harris, HC Coombs Policy Forum, ANU

Renata Musolino, Victorian Trades Hall Council

Clive Davenport, Small Technologies Cluster

Margaret Stebbing, Monash University

Rowan Gilmore, EM Solutions

Matthew Kearnes, School of Humanities, UNSW

Our promise on the day was to facilitate a broad and inclusive conversation, listen openly and well, capture the results in this report, seek feedback from participants on the report, and pass it on to a range of decision makers, looking for opportunities to influence decisions. We also promised to follow up, both with participants and with decision makers, to assess the impact and outcomes of the workshop.

Our hopes for the day were that participants bring their considerable knowledge, expertise and experience to this discussion; that they respect and seek to understand one another’s views; that in the spirit of mutual respect they work together to explore and debate the issues; and that they bring their imagination and creativity to producing some really useful and thought-provoking outputs from today.

STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways)STEP is a best practice framework for community and stakeholder engagement being implemented by NETS-PACE. The framework was developed through a co-design process with stakeholders and citizens (for which DIISRTE was awarded the 2011 Australasia Project of the Year Core Values Award from the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)). STEP provides principles and a platform for the conduct of engagement projects focussing on providing input to policy. The framework is designed to be usable by a range of organisations and is available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/step.

2http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategy/Documents/LegacyReport_DIICCSRTE.pdf

Background Enabling technologies like biotechnology and nanotechnology, because of their potential to bring significant changes, can be controversial. Often, debates about them are focused on risks to public health and the environment. Many people assume that this is because opponents have a risk focus, but social scientists have noted that scientists, industry and government also have a tendency to narrow in on risk in discussions about these developments, partly because this is where public concerns are assumed to rest. Another reason that experts adopt this focus is that discussions of risk, no matter how polarised, can still be scientific discussions, so scientific experts can stay in their comfort zone and not have to deal with more difficult questions about technology governance (Wynne, 2002).

Risks to public health and environment are obviously important, and adequate management of them is essential to the introduction of new technologies. But, a narrow focus on risk takes for granted the benefits and rewards of introducing new technologies, seeing them as clear, straightforward and uncontestable. Yet the changes that technologies are intended to bring cause a wide range of effects and impacts, changing social and natural environments in various ways. The benefits to one group may not be available to another group, or may not be experienced as benefits by another group; and as a technology solves one problem, it creates or contributes to a range of other problems, including ones no-one saw coming (Coughlin, 2010), or may solve a problem no-one envisaged that it could. Technologies change the ways we live, act and relate, in profound ways; they change our culture and our understandings of ourselves and the world. At the same time, technological development is shaped, in multiple ways, by the society in which it takes places (Williams and Edge, 1996).

Societal implications, the ways in which new technologies change “the course of history and the texture of daily life” (Sclove, 1995), are probably what lead the public to a sometimes vague feeling that technology is developing too rapidly and is not under control. They are probably what leads people to demand a say in how technologies develop, and why they should have a say. As implied earlier, these are not scientific issues; they are issues about what is a good life, about how we want our world to be. They require value-based discussions, which have to take place in the context of a diversity of knowledge, experiences and values. They are not easy.

The purpose of this workshop was to discuss the societal implications of new technologies, and how to consider them in decision making. The aim was to develop a set of considerations for decision makers in order to raise their profile and to get them onto the agenda of policy making and other decision making about new technologies. The workshop also considered the decision making context, which is complex and involves multiple decisions and decision makers, to consider the opportunities for taking societal implications and participatory input into account, with the aim of developing some suggestions for moving forward.

One of the challenges for the workshop was the focus on enabling technologies. These are essentially platform technologies, which contribute to multiple applications in multiple sectors. Determining societal implications for these is a significant challenge. In the workshop, applications of enabling technologies were used to stimulate discussion of societal considerations and the decision-making context.

Literature Review (see separate document)To set the scene for this project, a literature review was commissioned. This review, conducted by Dr Sarah Davies, considered relevant research and engagement activities conducted elsewhere in the world. The review identified a number of repeated themes from both lay and specialist assessments of the societal implications of technologies. These themes all go beyond weighing up benefits and risks and include systemic issues such as technologies’ interactions with economies, value systems and social institutions. The social context in which technologies are developed, produced and used is paramount and foremost concerns for citizens include: Why is this being funded? Do we need this, or are there other solutions to this problem? Who will ultimately benefit? Are our societies equipped to deal with the changes this technology may bring?

Although these themes are repeated in different studies, the review also describes how understandings of societal implications vary. Particular cultural contexts are associated with different general attitudes to new technologies, with the US more optimistic and Europe in general more sceptical, for example (Gaskell et al, 2005). Different nations have different enthusiasm for public participation processes informing technology development. Australia has some parallels to Europe in terms of knowledge and attitudes, but public engagement activities have been slower to develop here. Fields of application have also been shown to have a big impact on public responses to new technologies (Pidgeon et al, 2009).

The STEP workshop differed from much of the research discussed in the review in largely involving ‘experts’ and focussing on a meta-level i.e. the process rather than the content of societal assessment. However, recommendations about ‘more inclusive science policy and public engagement capability’, and ‘public access to authoritative, balanced information’ have been mirrored in public and expert assessments elsewhere. The review concludes that societal assessment needs to be flexible, continual, and focused on particular developments rather than on general questions. Assessment of societal implications also needs to be carried out in good faith as half-hearted attempts have tended to backfire (Horlick-Jones et al, 2007).

ReferencesCoughlin, J.F. (2010) Understanding the Janus Face of Technology and Ageing. International Journal of Emerging Techologies and Society, 8 (2): 62-67

Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14 (1): 81–90.

Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, G. Murdock, and T. O’Riordan (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. New York: Routledge.

Pidgeon, N., B. Herr Harthorn, K. Bryant, and T. Rogers-Hayden (2009) Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology 4 (2) (February): 95–98

Sclove, R.E. (1995) Democracy and Technology. New York: The Guilford Press.

Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996) The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25: 856-899

Wynne, B. (2002) Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? Current Sociology, 50 (3): 459-477

Engagement method and process

Before engagementFollowing development of a proposal for the project with the working group, an invitation list was drawn up with invitees selected from a range of organisations across a number of stakeholder groups:

Researchers, both nano and bio from universities, CSIRO and other research institutes and centres, science organisations, funding bodies

Industry, including small and large companies, industry organisations, venture capitalists, and business consultants

Government, including federal policy officers from DIISRTE and other departments, regulators, state policy agency staff and policy advisors

NGOs, including unions, consumer groups, public/consumer health organisations, environmental organisations

Social scientists and commentators, including science policy, science and technology studies, futures, innovation and science communication scholars

Community, including local government staff, professionals, community organisations, university of the third age, and teachers

Potential participants were emailed directly with information about the workshop and asked to register on an Eventbrite site. The event was publicised through Eventbrite and internal social media channels but no other advertising was used. Several key informants were supported to travel to the workshop. The workshop was fully catered.

Before the workshop, an information sheet was sent to registrants including information about enabling technology applications, and a pre-engagement question was sent by email. 18 registrants responded. Participants were given an information sheet and consent form when they arrived at the workshop and asked to complete pre-event and post-event surveys to assist with evaluation of the event (see Appendices x-y).

IntroductionThe workshop itself began with an ice-breaker in which participants moved about the room and discussed, in random pairs, a number of pre-set questions, including their hopes for the workshop. This was followed by a formal welcome and introduction by Wendy Russell of NETS-PACE covering the background above.

Societal implicationsParticipants were then asked to form groups to consider a number of areas of application of enabling technologies, to help them think about societal implications, particularly:

1. How these technologies affect the social context

2. What social impacts they have had or may have? E.g. social values/concerns/ethical issues associated with their use.

3. The important social considerations that should (but may not currently be) considered when decisions are made about new technologies.

The application areas were:

GM [genetically modified] crops and modified foods genomics and genetic testing renewable energy technologies mobile/smart phones regenerative medicine enabling assistive technologies (for disabled and aged people)

These application areas were described in an information sheet sent to participants prior to the engagement, and presented on boards at the tables to stimulate the group work (see Appendix A p x). They were first asked to share stories, real and imagined, thinking about:

1. How might this affect me?2. How might it affect my loved ones?3. How might it affect my community?4. How might it affect the most disadvantaged people in my community?

Societal considerationsNew groups then formed to consider societal considerations in relation to the question:

“To design and manage technologies with people in mind, decision makers need to consider...”

This session was run as a world café, i.e. the topic was discussed in three rounds, with participants moving to other tables between rounds, and a ‘host’ remaining at the table to capture the conversation and create some continuity between rounds. This session finished with participants coming up with 5 considerations to present back to the whole group.

After lunch, a refocus activity involved participants writing down “What’s the question on your mind right now?”. The group then effectively ranked these questions in a quick group activity.

Decision making contextThis was followed by new groups forming, with particular attention to achieving diversity within groups, to consider the decision making context for enabling technologies, and opportunities for societal considerations and input to influence these decisions. They were asked to develop a scheme or model on large sheets of paper, based on these instructions:

1. Develop a scheme to describe the process of designing, commercializing and managing new technologies.

2. Highlight who the decision makers are along this process and what decisions they are making (remind participants of the key themes extracted from the group just previous as discussion prompts).

3. Consider opportunities for societal considerations to be taken into account in these decisions, how that is best done, and where engagement and dialogue could play a role. (remind participants of the key considerations developed in the morning session)

After one round of developing their schemes, all but two members of each group (who stayed behind to discuss their schemes) were then asked to look at other groups’ schemes, discuss differences and similarities and give feedback, and use their observations to improve their schemes. Schemes were then displayed.

Recommendations/actionsThe final session involved participants forming groups of their choice to develop recommendations/action statements from the workshop. This was followed by a ‘Dot Mocracy’ activity, where all participants were given the opportunity to vote and comment on recommendations. The day was wrapped-up with an open question about surprises or things learnt.

Engagement Results

Pre-engagement Nearly 20 participants responded to the pre-engagement, providing really thoughtful answers to the pre-engagement question, ‘Why is it important to consider social implications of new technologies?’.

A number referred to the major impacts of science and technology, which ‘underpin all aspects of society’, influence ‘how we conduct our lives’ and have positive and negative effects, including on our wellbeing. In this context, people commented that it was important to consider how ‘the average person’ or the ‘most disadvantaged person’ is affected, particularly as users and those affected by technologies have different interests compared to technology developers, and costs, risks and benefits are not equitably distributed. Others noted modern demands of citizens to be involved and consulted, increasing reluctance to accept the word of ‘experts’, and needs and appetites to be informed and aware of benefits and risks of new developments, particularly in a highly connected digital age.

Others felt that it was important to understand societal implications in order for new technologies to be accepted and embraced, and for industry to gain a ‘social licence’. It was regarded as part of the ‘ethics of decision making’ to consider implications. The impact of new technologies on ‘society as a whole’ was suggested to provide the ‘tipping points’ for success or failure, and these impacts are not always revealed by the ‘narrow focus’ of market research. It was suggested that good research on these implications can ‘go a long way’ to successful technology development outcomes.

Others pointed to civil unrest and backlash that can result when these implications are not considered, and to the importance of ‘well considered’ regulation to protect the environment and society. It was also pointed out that while ‘implications’ tends to have a negative focus, it also covers positive aspects and contributions. Consideration of societal implications needs to take account of the complex and unpredictable ways in which technologies ‘interact and converge’ with other technologies and the social context, and the fact that society also shapes technology (Williams & Edge, 1996).

Ice-breakerIn the ice-breaker, participants hoped for a better understanding of societal impacts of technology and of the process of decision making for enabling technologies. They were curious about the outcomes of the forum and how they would influence decision making, particularly by government. They hoped the workshop would lead to action and change and would not be just a talkfest. They were also interested in public perceptions of enabling technologies and in bringing societal input into decision making about them.

Societal implicationsIn considering societal implications, participants were given examples of existing and developing application areas, and noted a range of societal implications associated with emerging enabling technologies and technology generally. The group was not asked to rank or structure the societal implications that were raised. However, an attempt to structure the input from the workshop in relation to societal implications has been made below, based on the range of issues raised.

New technologies, generally, have a range of effects on people and society, positive, negative or ambivalent3. These are relevant to enabling technologies and their applications. Many of these effects are indirect and difficult to predict, particularly for platform technologies. Nonetheless, identifying the range of potential societal effects can assist in assessing the societal implications of an emerging area of development or application.

Societal effects can be understood to operate at a number of levels (Fig. 1).

Basic rights and freedoms

Basic rights and freedoms

PracticesPractices

CommunityCommunity

Knowledge, values,

emotions

Knowledge, values,

emotions

Political and economic structures

Political and economic structures

Environment

Fig 1. – levels at which technologies have societal effects

Technologies can have tangible effects on the quality of the physical environment, by creating pollution, hazards to safety and health, and impacts on ecosystems. These have societal implications in affecting public health and ecosystem services. They can also affect the amenity of the environment, e.g. through noise, smells and visual effects. They also, through their influence on practices (see below) have effects on sustainable resource, energy and land use. For example, there have been concerns about the toxicity of some nanoparticles, which may affect human health and other organisms, particularly micro-organisms; GM crops affect the use of agrochemicals such as herbicide and insecticide, potentially affecting (in positive or negative ways) the environmental impacts of farming systems.

Often in association with effects on the environment, technologies can affect basic human rights and freedoms, including access to food, shelter, healthcare and basic services; as well as rights to informed choice, privacy, security, quality of life and participation. An understanding of these effects requires particular attention to effects on disadvantaged and marginal groups in society. For example, if assistive

3 Ambivalent in the sense of not being clearly positive or negative, or being positive for some individuals or groups but negative for others.

diagnostic devices constantly monitor the health of patients, providing this information to service providers, some may experience this as an invasion of privacy and independence; if technological developments result in major changes to industries, this may affect the workforce participation and quality of life of some workers; the use of crop species to produce biofuels or high value bioproducts may affect land use for food production, affecting access to food.

Technologies can also have profound affects on knowledge, values and emotions in society, including our understanding of basic concepts such as life, death, humanity and progress; our ethical and moral values and standards; our perceptions of our needs and wants; our hopes, fears, excitement, disappointment and visions for the future; and our identities, status and cultural values. For example, stem cell technologies have given rise to a debate about when life begins; identities and status are associated with ‘smart’ phone use; new areas such as synthetic biology make some people excited about our mastery of living systems, and other people fearful about opening Pandora’s box.

Technologies also affect the way we do things, our practices. Almost every aspect of our behaviour is influenced by technological development – our work, our leisure, our learning, our communication, our socializing, our travel and our civic participation. As a society, our use of energy and resources, food production and land use, healthcare, transport and education, are all fundamentally influenced by technological development. The effects of technologies on our practices can be positive or negative, and can affect the flexibility, creativity and choice associated with our practices. The effects are complex and cumulative. For example, mobile digital technologies have fundamentally changed the way we communicate and socialise; reproductive technologies and genetic testing have changed our approach to having children; developments in information technologies have profoundly changed the nature of work in most sectors.

Technologies affect community, its structure and function, in multiple ways. Structure refers to the make-up of community (demographics, geography, formal relationships) and function refers to relations, interactions and social cohesion. Technologies have equity effects, demographic and workforce effects, effects on culture, public health, cohesion and participation. For example, technology products are generally more available to wealthier consumers, including wealthy nations, and affect the rich-poor divide; health technologies affect longevity and thereby influence the age profile of the community; information and communication technologies influence physical fitness, relationships and leisure, which changes the way communities function.

Technologies also affect and shape political and economic structures, just as technological development is affected by these structures. They have these effects by creating new industries, markets, infrastructure and intellectual property; by generating economic returns and costs; and by influencing policies, regulation and funding. They also influence the way we define and address societal problems. For example, genetic technologies have changed approaches to diagnostics, agricultural research and forensics resulting in new hospital and university infrastructure, new public-private interactions, new regulations, and legal practices, and new funding priorities.

Societal considerationsIn identifying these levels of societal effects of technologies, it is possible to develop a set of questions for decision makers based on:

“To design and manage technologies4 with people in mind, decision makers should consider...”

Note that these criteria are not ‘tick the box’ criteria as many of them cannot be judged objectively but require societal input for their assessment. Most are unpredictable, to some extent, but consideration of these questions at an early stage could help to anticipate future problems and possibly to steer technology development towards more acceptable outcomes.

EnvironmentWhat 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 freedomsWill 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 emotionsHow might the technology change basic understandings (e.g. of humanity, life, death, species), 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?

PracticesHow 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

4 By technologies, we mean here both technological artifacts eg mobile phones, but also the systems surrounding them eg infrastructure, procedures, knowledge.

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 structuresHow 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?

Issues for assessing societal implicationsDuring the discussion of societal implications, a whole range of issues was raised about how such implications could be taken into account and the associated challenges. These issues are summarized below.

Some groups first considered who the relevant decision makers were and came up with a range including government/policy makers, politicians, industry/business, supply chain, investors, scientists/researchers, regulators, end users/customers/ consumers, parents, ethics committees.

One of the major difficulties identified with assessing societal implications of technology, particularly enabling technologies, was the uncertainty and unpredictability associated with technology development and use. This included the difficulty of predicting the end-users and outcomes, including unintended consequences, of a new technology. Considering the societal effects summarised above, it is clear that outcomes from technology use are complex and cumulative.

The complexity of the technology development process was also discussed, including the link between pure and applied research and technology development and commercialization, particularly give the ‘spread’, in both time and space, of this process. A long-term view of the technology development process was considered a necessary precursor to considering societal implications. It was also pointed out that technologies evolve over time, and that new combinations of technologies and spin-off technologies emerge. What’s more, innovations can be disruptive or derivative, leading to new technologies that are familiar or quite novel. Any process for societal

assessment of technologies would need to take account of the complexity, uncertainty and dynamics of technological development.

Despite these challenges, most at the workshop seemed to feel that attempts to consider societal implications, and to develop better ways of doing so, are worthwhile.

Of even greater importance to this discussion is the global context of innovation. This discussion, like many such conversations, discussed the ‘innovation system’ and ‘society’ in the context of Australia. This tended to ignore the fact that research and innovation are globalised and that the development of new regulations or assessment processes also has to take place in a global setting, with consequences for the effectiveness and competitiveness of Australian innovation.

Australia was seen to have particular challenges for innovation and technology development because of small markets and a tendency to be risk-averse compared with international competitors. Australian IP going off-shore was noted as a problem by some, with some suggesting that the answer is open source innovation, while others maintaining that IP ownership is critical to technology development. Assessment of societal implications and feedback into the technology development process is particularly challenging for Australia because a majority of consumer technologies come from overseas. Therefore much of the decision making context is out of reach of assessment processes that could be conducted in Australia. This was a major issue for this project.

There was discussion of whose role it should be to consider societal implications — government or industry. A role was seen for government, but it was suggested that the government should avoid ‘picking winners’ and should make strategic choices. These should be based on evidence including about societal implications, with government investing in research assessing societal implications alongside technical research. There were questions about how much policy influence such assessment might have and how to achieve whole of government decisions.

Current emphasis on markets ‘sorting it out’ was considered, at least by many at the workshop, as inadequate. There were questions about who owns technology and who benefits from it, with recognition of ‘big’ interests being involved, and with questions about how the public interest competes with profit. There was recognition that innovation needs to make economic returns and to be economically sustainable but that industry acknowledges the need to engage with customers, and to seek a ‘social licence to operate’.

Another central challenge identified is the assessment of values, needs and benefits, particularly given the plurality of knowledge, values, ethics and culture in modern societies and the fact that new technologies construct and shape values and preferences. Existing assessment was seen to focus on economic measures (such as GDP5), environment and sustainability measures, and ethics, narrowly defined (e.g. by University Ethics Committees). There was acknowledgement that societal input was necessary and that such assessment requires conversations about ‘what we value as a community’. It was also recognised that there is a significant divide between decision makers and users, and that the quality of debate and discussion about such issues is not high. This is indicated in low levels of trust in decision

5 Although there was recognition that little data has been collected in Australia linking R&D with GDP.

makers, and resentment and backlash from the community about particular issues e.g. GM foods.

There was discussion of the need for communication and education to equip citizens to contribute to such discussions. There were suggestions of a role for science communication, but tension identified between science communication advocating for and promoting science and technology, and a role in providing and facilitating societal input and participation. This tension was seen by some to exist within NETS. Others felt that NETS had provided a unique, if challenging, opportunity to bring diverse stakeholders and perspectives together, including those advocating for and against new technologies.

In terms of new approaches to take account of societal implications, there was discussion about whether societal implications should provide criteria to ‘block’ emerging technologies (like regulatory hurdles) or should seek to adapt technologies during their development (upstream). This linked to discussion of new design approaches, including use-centred design and co-creation, as well as targeted approaches such as ‘safety by design’. There was discussion of the need for new tools and frameworks for societal assessment (and the use of existing tools developed elsewhere in the world e.g. social impact assessment, technology assessment) that could involve the community early, and could involve others experts such as ethicists, philosophers and social scientists in collaborative development of new technologies.

It was stressed that societal assessment should consider positives as well as negatives, and opportunities and needs as well as risks, impacts and benefits. There was discussion about how such assessment would fit with risk assessment and management, with comments that current regulatory frameworks are constrained to considering risk, and might not be appropriate for consideration of wider societal issues.

There was also discussion of bigger pictures issues and grand societal challenges and how policy could be too technology-focused and not consider these broader issues. The need to consider how technology solutions fit with alternatives, including low-tech and no-tech solutions such as new management systems or social policies and innovations, and how technology development fits into efforts at problem solving, system integration and foresight were noted. In this context, questions should be asked about not just what the implications of a technology are, but whether it is what’s needed in a particular context. Assessment of societal implications could link technology development to social issues and problems.

Refocus activityThe refocus activity after lunch captured what was most on participants’ minds after the morning session. The most highly ranked questions related to specific issues associated with the workshop topic such as:

How should government regulate nanotechnology differently to how it has regulated genetic engineering?

What models of governance can both enable innovation and ensure responsible development of enabling technologies? (And be supported by both sides of government!)

Who controls and benefits from emerging technologies?

How can incentives of policy makers be adapted to encourage technology development in Australia?

Will government be able to manage implementing a policy process that will handle new technologies?

How to include societal implications of emerging technologies in government regulation?

Other questions related to the workshop itself:

What are the outcomes of today going to be?

How are they (the organisers) going to do anything with this? What are the desired outcomes?

What question are we trying to answer?

Did I eat too much?

Decision making contextThe groups took different approaches to modeling the decision making context and used different materials and styles (see Appendix C).

Most groups focused on research as a separate process to innovation, product development and commercialisation, recognising that the links are not direct. Research is conducted predominantly by public organisations, including universities and research agencies such as the CSIRO. Public research agencies also participate in innovation and product development to some extent. Most innovation and commercialisation is conducted by Industry, with industry also contributing to research, but to a lesser extent and with a more applied focus.

Some groups emphasised the importance of markets, including for translating consumer preferences, and the importance of business planning in relation to commercialisation. There was recognition that planning must be done in the context of business risk, as well as opportunity. Investment decisions are a key site of influence and are made in response to perceptions of market need, influenced by market research. Investment needs to be understood globally. The role of marketing in influencing consumer preferences and aspirations was also noted.

Others considered research and research findings, which feed into the development of new technologies, but also contribute to knowledge production through publications. There are strong incentives for university researchers, in particular, to publish their findings in order to demonstrate research excellence and these sometimes compete with research findings leading to industrial applications. Intellectual property arrangements and strategies are relevant to how research and commercialisation decisions are made. Decisions and decision processes of funding bodies are important drivers of research directions. Collaborations and links are also important for research and research translation.

As well as research findings, innovation also feeds on conceptions of problems, needs and wants. These include societal problems and needs, but also consumer needs and wants. Current processes involve conceptions of public good, needs and opportunities held by government, industry and investors, which shape early/high level decisions, generally without input from the community. Assessment processes during technology development tend to focus on specific issues such as efficacy,

safety and economic viability (eg OH&S assessment, environmental assessment, certification and testing) and generally only deal with ethics associated with research and trials. Broader ethical considerations are not taken into account. Products emerge, with consumers as the recipients, rather than as participants in the process of technological development.

Societal problems and needs are generally assessed by government, and through research. Consumer needs and wants can be communicated to industry via market research and analysis, which also directly influence innovation and commercialisation. Some groups suggested better mechanisms for assessing needs, including in relation to societal problems, and appropriate technological responses to these, considered in conjunction with non-technological (political/social) responses. A suggestion was that mechanisms could be developed to ‘fast-track’ high benefit technologies that could be demonstrated to provide solutions to pressing problems.

Government supports and influences research through funding and research priorities, and innovation through funding schemes and other initiatives such as programs to link industry and researchers. Government also regulates technological products that emerge from the process, and may have downstream roles such as in providing infrastructure, standards and guidelines. Regulation was seen as an important process for shaping technological development. Some groups saw it as reflecting social values, but others saw its role as more narrow, focussed on safety.

There was also reference to design and innovation in the creation of new technologies, and issues around technical feasibility, as being important internal drivers.

Societal input to decision makingSuggestions for sites where societal engagement could provide input and societal considerations could be taken into account included:

In setting research priorities and strategies

In research funding priorities

In research decisions and processes

In the identification of problems and needs

In industry R&D decisions and business planning

In investment decisions (cf corporate social responsibility?)

When assessing technical feasibility (social feasibility?)

As part of translation

In market research

In design, innovation and product development processes

In product testing

By broadening current assessment (e.g. OH&S, environmental, life cycle assessments) and regulation

There was recognition that technologies and their developmental processes are different and it would be worthwhile to consider which technologies need engagement at which stages.

A synthesis of the models is shown in Fig. 2. Note that this is not a true reflection of any of the models, but seeks to bring together the content and features of the various models in a coherent way. It clearly demonstrates the complexity of the decision making context! Suggested ways in which engagement and societal input could contribute to improving decision making are indicated.

Development of processes for societal assessment of problems and needs, involving input from the wider community (not just consumers), could inform innovation and commercialisation as well as providing evidence to inform other solutions to societal problems (new policies, programs, services etc). Societal assessment and input could also contribute to research priority setting, although not all saw this as desirable.

It was suggested that citizens could also contribute to innovation and design processes by working with industry or researchers in co-creation processes, but not all participants felt that this would be feasible, given resource constraints and commercial confidentiality issues.

Societal assessment and input could inform business and investment decisions by contributing to corporate social responsibility and systems like triple bottom line reporting. When establishing the technical feasibility of innovations, processes could be developed to assess the ‘social feasibility’ of moving ahead with the innovation.

Fields in which there are identifiable end-users, such as medical devices, have developed processes to consult with end-users at various points in the development of such products, with the result that products are more tailored and acceptable to end-users. Such processes are equally relevant to consumer products with a broader range of end-users.

Commercialisation

Research

Research findings

ProblemsNeeds, wants

InnovationDevelopment

Design

Translation

Product development Testing

Research priorities,Funding

Research OrganisationsCSIROOtherUniversities

Industry

Government

Excellence Framework

Publications

Ideas

Societal Assessment

Societal solutions

CitizensCommunityConsumers

Patents

Regulation

Products

Initiatives

Funding

Marketresearch

Co-creation

InvestorsFunding

BenefitsRisksImpacts

Assessment

Distribution

Markets

Business ModelExecution Plan

ethics

ethics

ManufacturingWell-developedUnderdevelopedSuggested

Infrastructure, standards, labelling

Open innov’n

Figure 2. – Decision making context for enabling technology development and opportunities for societal assessment and input

Recommendations‘What should the next step be for considering societal implications of enabling technologies?’

The recommendations, ranked according to agreement of the group in the voting process6:

1) Invest in better, more inclusive science policy and public engagement capability, in both government and civil society. Federal government to be responsible, but would include universities and other groups (42)

2) For DIISRTE to develop a mechanism to give the public access to authoritative, balanced information about the benefits, risks and uncertainties of new technologies (40)

3) A report from today leading to a discussion paper which should inform broader government and stakeholder consideration of processes for the development, commercialisation and management of enabling technologies (30)

4) That the deliberations/suggestions/ conclusions from today are taken seriously by the decision makers (i.e. action is taken). NETS-PACE should be responsible (25)

5) Increase participation from a broad demographic (21)

6) There should be an independent body to consider long-term impacts of innovation (for example, consider things like the long-term goals for Australia’s technology industry?) (17)

Those not accepted by the whole group:

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 (1)

A framework to impart the responsibility for societal and ethical impacts upon the researchers, individual or institution (-8)

Change ‘enabling’ technology to ‘emerging’ technology to use more neutral language (-18)

That the community be engaged at every stage of the product/service development process (-22)

6 These scores are based on 2 points for strong agreement, 1 point for agreement, 0 points for neutral, -1 point for disagreement and -2 points for strong disagreement.

Below is a summary of the comments made about the agreed recommendations.

Invest in better, more inclusive science policy and public engagement capability, in both government and civil society. Federal government to be responsible, but would include universities and other groups (42)

It was suggested that this requires an understanding of how innovation actually happens, and ways to get the public interested in science policy and informed about risks and benefits. It needs to take account of risk/reward and involve those who bear the risk.

For DIISRTE to develop a mechanism to give the public access to authoritative, balanced information about the benefits, risks and uncertainties of new technologies (40)

Some commented that DIISRTE already has such a mechanism and that it should continue to be funded, but others were not aware of it or felt that it did not provide unbiased, accurate information. There was concern expressed about the NETS Stakeholder Advisory Council ending. In providing information, uncertainty was considered critical as was dealing with conflicting reports or studies, providing independent perspectives, and understanding issues. This was suggested to be just the first step towards a broader conversation.

A report from today leading to a discussion paper which should inform broader government and stakeholder consideration of processes for the development, commercialisation and management of enabling technologies (30)

That the deliberations/suggestions/ conclusions from today are taken seriously by the decision makers (i.e. action is taken). NETS-PACE should be responsible (25)

Some felt that a discussion paper would require a big time commitment, and wondered whether it would actually affect change, given that there have been other such papers. It would need clear actionable outcomes. Some regarded the second recommendation as difficult to measure and a ‘non-action’ and someone asked ‘is today enough?’ A suggestion was to set up a consultative group to consider societal implications. Follow up from NETS was considered necessary.

Increase participation from a broad demographic (21)

It was felt that this was a broad aspiration that was not really actionable. Several people felt that education needed to be provided as part of this.

There should be an independent body to consider long-term impacts of innovation (for example, consider things like the long-term goals for Australia’s technology industry?) (17)

There was concern that the advice of such a foresighting body might not be respected and would need to be answerable to a high level like PMSEIC to ensure a whole-of-government approach. There were questions about whether it could set goals for industry. Others felt that there are existing bodies and legislation of this kind. It was suggested that dispassionate assessment of innovations, like those provided by the Office of Technology Assessment in the US, could help ensure that regulation keeps up with innovation.

Wrap-upThe wrap-up raised a number of issues as well as giving an indication of how people found the day. A number of people mentioned the diversity in the room and how it made them realize how siloed people are; how good it is to hear from other areas, how they need to respect one another and work together, including agreeing about terminology. It was commented that some younger people would have enriched the group (a few participants took offense!). There was a comment that creative policy makers are needed, who are prepared to shape the ‘stage’ for such discussions and turn them into reality. Another person commented on the importance of celebrating success as well as looking at challenges.

In closing, Wendy asked for permission to craft the results into a coherent report, promising to send a draft of this report out to participants asking for their input. When asked whether this workshop would make a difference, she indicated that she couldn’t promise action, but would distribute the report widely and seek policy influence.

The report was drafted and sent out to the working group for comment and then to participants about two months after the event. Comments received were taken into account in revising the report.

Survey responses and feedbackA number of people filled in pre-event surveys but left before filling out post-event surveys (7) and vice versa (3), so the survey data is somewhat incomplete. The majority (60%) of participants reported a high to very high knowledge of enabling technologies at the start of the workshop. Nine participants reported low or very low knowledge and six of these reported an increase in their knowledge of enabling technologies after the workshop, although generally only by one point (very low to low or low to neutral). Most participants (76%) were interested in finding out more about enabling technologies at the start. A few (3) were more interested in finding out more after the workshop, but a number of others (5) reported being less interested following the workshop. Some of those who ‘lost interest’ reported an increase in knowledge during the workshop, so may have been satisfied by what they had learnt. Others, whose knowledge was fairly high to begin with, may have felt they have enough access to information about enabling technologies, or that a full day of discussing this topic had been enough for them!

Only half (50%) reported a high to very high knowledge of societal implications of new technologies, with 35% reporting neutral knowledge. Only five participants reported low or very low knowledge of this aspect, and most of them indicated that their knowledge had increased during the workshop. A couple of participants felt that their knowledge decreased during the workshop. This is most likely to reflect a re-assessment of their knowledge level during the workshop, as they found out about what they don’t know, rather than an actual decrease in their knowledge. This is reflected in some of the written comments, which referred to ‘a work in progress’ and the desire to ‘explore more’ following the workshop.

When asked about their current knowledge of the different applications, GM crops and modified foods, renewable energy technologies and mobile phones were most familiar to people, with participants on average having the lowest knowledge of regenerative medicine. A proportion of participants (about 25%) reported changes in their knowledge following the workshop, both increases and decreases, for each of the technologies.

Participants were asked if they anticipated that enabling technologies would have positive or negative impacts on society. Over 75% of participants agreed that enabling technologies will have positive impacts, with only three disagreeing. A small number (5) of participants reported minor increases (of one point) to this view following the workshop, and two participants reported a slight decrease in their agreement about positive impacts. A smaller proportion (36%) of participants agreed that enabling technologies will have negative impacts on society, with 42% disagreeing with this statement. There was a bit more movement for this question, with eight participants expressing less agreement about negative impacts following the workshop, and three indicating increased agreement.

A majority of participants (70%) disagreed that negative impacts will outweigh positives, with only five participants agreeing. There were a few participants who changed their view on this, three with more and three with less agreement, mostly to a more neutral stance. When asked whether most of society’s problems can be solved if technology development continues, only 22% agreed and nearly half (47%) disagreed. There was a fair bit of movement in this question also, with equal

numbers agreeing more and less following the workshop, with most once again moving to a more neutral stance.

Not surprisingly perhaps, given their attendance at the workshop, just over half of participants (53%) disagreed that enough attention is given to societal implications in policy and research decisions. Following the workshop, this figure had risen to 66%. Only four participants agreed before, and three after, the workshop.

When asked whether they thought the workshop might affect their views on enabling technologies, most people were unsure (neutral) but a significant number (35%) felt that it would. In contrast, following the workshop, only one person reported that their views had changed. All others were neutral or disagreed that their views had been affected, indicating that a majority of participants’ views had been affected less than they expected. When participants were asked whether the workshop would affect the way they think about enabling technologies, responses were on average more neutral and changed less following the workshop.

When asked whether they thought the workshop might affect their future actions, decisions and choices, most people were once again neutral, and 31% felt that it would. Following the workshop, their thinking on this was once again more negative, with 42% agreeing less that the workshop had had an affect.

This lack of effect of the workshop on views and actions is interesting, and could be attributable to the high number of professional people at the workshop, who each came with their relevant ‘hat’ on and therefore were likely to have both views and intentions for action well established before the workshop, with little expectation of them shifting. This may be reflected in one participant responding N/A, when asked in what ways the discussion had changed their views. Others indicated that their views had been reinforced. Interestingly, although the data is very limited, this response also came from some of the general community members.

When asked about the process of the workshop, virtually all felt that they had been made to feel included in the dialogue, and that there was a diversity of views present (one was neutral). Only two participants felt that the information presented was biased, and most felt that that the event had been well facilitated (83%) and well organised (77%). Written comments about overall impressions included a few critical comments, and a number of endorsements ranging from ‘good’ to ‘excellent’. A considerable number of participants commented on the diversity of people and views and the sharing and networking opportunities. Others commended the facilitation (Keith ran smooth and clear) and the food, but the over-catering was pointed out. One person ‘didn’t comprehend the function of the workshop’, while another found it ‘far more valuable than I anticipated’.

Specific suggestions included that explanations of activities required more clarity, including definitions of terms, that the broad range of topics lead to superficial treatment of them and that the diversity was not adequately harnessed, with too little shared knowledge. There were several calls for broader participation, including more NGO and community participation (the workshop was considered very industry dominated) and greater age and social class diversity. Others hoped that it was the beginning of an ongoing conversation.

ReflectionsAlthough the response from industry representatives was pleasing, indicating interest in these issues, it was certainly true that industry, government and research were over-represented compared to NGOs and community. This is probably partly due to resource and time constraints to participation and while we were able to support travel for some interstate participants, we did not provide any payment for time. Also, there are just fewer NGO representatives. The timeframe was also an issue, as some potential participants needed more notice (invitations went out about three weeks before the event) and the timeframe did not allow further steps to increase community involvement (eg recruitment, focus groups or preparatory sessions).

It was a little disappointing that participants didn’t explore societal implications in more depth. The conversations tended to come back to the problem of how societal implications should be considered, and the problems associated with technology development and translation into products in the real world. This was at least partly because the method and instructions were not clear enough about what was required, particularly, for example, in asking for implications and then considerations. Considerations were dealt with much more broadly. Descriptions of sessions needed to be tighter and more specific.

The development of schemes of the decision making context was an interesting and fruitful exercise, demonstrating the diversity of perspectives but also common understandings. The process of review, in which participants considered other models and refined their own, was a valuable addition. However, the session did not involve a report back about the schemes. This was unfortunate, because although participants had had an opportunity to discuss the schemes in groups, there was no commentary about them, and the schemes were quite complex. This lack of commentary made reporting on this session difficult, and insights from the exercise were not fully reflected in the report.

The results indicating participants’ changes in knowledge from the surveys were very interesting. A significant number indicated that their knowledge, both about specific technologies and about enabling technologies generally, had decreased following the workshop. There are several possible explanations for this. One is ‘errors’ in self reporting when those surveyed vary in their self-assessment of their own knowledge. Another is that participants didn’t feel that they learnt anything and came out less informed and/or more confused than at the start. Another is that participants learnt during the workshop how complex the topics in fact are, and how much they don’t know.

A combination of these latter explanations is probably consistent with this type of event, in which a range of people bring their different knowledge and perspectives to the discussion, creating a ‘messier’ picture of the topic than would be presented from one particular perspective. This highlights the difference between this type of event and a ‘science communication’ event, in which a particular version of knowledge about a topic is presented. It also suggests that this line of survey questions is inadequate to capture what is actually going on, and to evaluate the success of the event. Some more nuanced questioning would be appropriate. This might, for example, ask participants whether they felt that a) their knowledge had been affirmed but not added to, b) they had become more confused or c) they had come to appreciate the complexity of the topic.