Transcript Coming to the Table

Presentation to the End Users Workshop
held at Victoria University of Wellington
8 December 2008.
Dr Karen Cronin
Science Leader (Science, Technology and Society)
Environmental Science and Research ESR
Wellington
Plant and Food Research and ESR
FRST Funded Project #13667 2008-12
• Future developments in food science &
technology
• Improving communication between
scientists and society through ‘dialogue’
• How the research project will work
• How you can be involved
• What we hope to achieve
Thinking about changes in our
food…
What was the
typical family
meal when you
were growing
up?
Food trends today…
What kinds
of food
are we
eating
today?
Food trends tomorrow…
What kinds
of food
might we
be eating
in 20 years
from now?
How do we define what will be
“Future Foods”?
• Technological imagination
• Science and technology
investment decisions
• Government policy
• Public and consumer
preferences
• Environmental changes
• Social expectations
Developments in ‘future food’ science
• Functional foods: whole, fortified or enhanced
foods that provide benefits beyond the provision of
simple nutrients (Omega-3 fatty acids in salmon,
fortified margarines with plant sterol and stanol esters
to reduce cholesterol)
• Nutraceuticals: any bioactive component that
delivers a health benefit (supplements)
• Nutrigenomics: diet factor in chronic disease,
influenced by a person’s genetic make up.
Use genetic testing to design diet – promote function
foods to match.
• GM foods – trans genic or intra genetic modification
• Nanotechnology and food – delivering
genetic changes inside a genome, sensors for
food borne disease, food packaging materials.
Other food science trends: organics
and sustainable agriculture
Zespri
Organic
Massey Univ. Organic tomatoes & peppers field trial
Pesticide residue testing
The global context for future food
science and technology
• Food production affected by climate
change – temperature shifts, floods,
droughts, soil quality, new pests and
diseases, land use conflicts
• Contribution to climate change by
food production e.g. methane, forest
loss
• Energy demands: pressure on land
use to produce biofuels/ biopolymers
v. food crops; energy inputs to
farming
• Marine ecosystems: pressure on
resources x climate impacts
• Growing world population, poverty,
food shortages
• Changing markets, geopolitical shifts
• Globalisation of science sector
Social trends in Western society
• Aging population
• Reducing fertility
• Increasing ethnic
diversity
• Obesity
• Diseases of
affluence
• Increasing
connections
between food,
health, well being,
spirituality
Social responses to new
technologies
• ‘The Public’: citizens
not just consumers
• Growing expectations
for accountability in
science
• Social purpose, end
use v. commercial or
operational benefit
Social controversy over GM food
Argument
Culture
Dialogue
Culture
The changing social contract
between science and society
•
Post War period: Science expected to produce
reliable knowledge and communicate its
discoveries to society.
“Science speaking to Society”
•
Now: “Society Speaking Back”
Scientific knowledge must be socially robust i.e.
valid inside and outside the laboratory, involving
wider experts and lay experts, sensitive to
social implications. Knowledge production is
transparent and participative.
Reciprocity: requiring the public to understand
how science works and science to understand
how its publics work.
Gibbons, M. (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 401
C81
Science innovation
and society
Downstream effects of
science and technology
Science policy and investment decisions
Science
Innovation
Pipeline:
Theory
Lab
Applied
Technology
Economy
Products
Market
Upstream
Public
Engagement
Society
Physical Environment
Karen Cronin January 2008
Moving public engagement
upstream
• Downstream- effects, risks
• Prediction and measurement
of effects
• Application of controls
• Upstream – consider
implications earlier in the
technology cycle
• Input to selection of
alternatives earlier in the
policy cycle
Plant and Food Research, and ESR
FRST Funded Project #13667 2008-12
Engaging scientists, industry, government and the
community in dialogue on future food technologies
• Explore social and economic context before
committing to science investment
• Futures workshop to scope future food
technologies
• Dialogue between stakeholders
• Identifying preferred R,S&T
• Input to strategy and decision-making
Taking a “Science, Technology and Society”
STS approach
How can scientists engage
with society?
Purpose of science
communication
•
•
•
•
Most scientists see it as a one way
transfer of information to:
Educate people so they like the science
‘Make them understand’
Recruit people into the science profession
Inspire people about science
Davies, S.R. Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science
Communication Vol 29 No 4 June 2008 pp 413-434
Science communication also seen
by some scientists as:
•
•
•
•
•
Enjoyable for scientists to talk about their work
A responsibility
Part of being accountable to the public
Empowering the public to discuss issues
A two-way dialogue: to talk about issues with the
public and find out what they think
• Finding middle ground on an issue
• Coming up with new views or ideas
Science communication
Deficit Model=
selling science to the public
Engagement Model =
communicating with the public
about science
Peter Sandman - 4 stages of Evolution in
Risk Communication:
1) “Stonewalling” – ‘the public’ is as ill-informed about risks; public opinion should
have little influence in decision-making.
2) The “Missionary” approach – if ‘the public’ is educated with data they will
understand risks more accurately and respond appropriately.
3) “Dialogue” – communication should be a two way process, with both sides
listening to each other and recognising where there are legitimate concerns.
4) “Organisational change” – proponents of change actively seek to involve
stakeholders in decision making (including the selection of options) and alter
organisational behaviour to adopt inclusive practices.
Sandman, P. (1989). Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In V. Covello, D. McCallum & M.
Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and non-government
organisations (pp. 45-49). New York: Plenum Press.
Sandman, P. (1991). Risk = hazard + outrage. A formula for effective risk communication [Video]: American
Association for Industrial Hygiene.
“[I would like to see] better processes – that
acknowledge the wisdom and world views of all
people involved. … the power difference e.g.
scientists (knowledge holder) vs. myself (spiritual
concerns- lay person knowledge) can be very
frustrating…” #Community
“I would hope that we learn to engage the public
in a different way and before the debate [takes
off]. People are curious about the technology. As
scientists we need to focus more on the
community.” #Scientist
“Hands Across the Water – developing dialogue between stakeholders in the NZ biotechnology debate”
Cronin and Jackson, 2004.
Future Food Innovation in New
Zealand will be influenced by..
• Trends in the science
• Trends in the global context for food
research and production
• Social trends
• Market trends/ consumer preferences
• Our values and priorities
• Responsiveness in the science sector
• Innovation and investment strategy
Project Structure:
Phase I
Set up project team
Communication with stakeholders
Phase II
Project Timeline 2008-12
Scope future trajectories
Review upstream engagement
Review NZ,international research
Map out emerging technologies
Match technology life cycle to opportunities
for engagement
Phase I
Set up and Communication
Phase III
Set up stakeholder workshops
Issues Mapping Workshops – general,
Maori
Phase IV
Phase II
Research and Analysis
Link to science/industry/government
strategies
Evaluation
Final report and briefings
Phase III StakehoIder
Engagement
Phase IV
Strategic Development
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Benefits to End Users:
• Involvement in the research process
• Access to latest research/ NZ and international
literature
• Contribute views and information
• Involvement with other End Users
• Participation in workshops
• Access to research findings
• Input to future strategy
What we hope the project will achieve:
• Market and social intelligence
• Improved understanding of social and market context for
future food innovation
• Identify drivers of risk acceptance
• Opportunities for development
• Improved dialogue/ reduced conflict
• Socially and commercially robust investment
• Improved responsiveness/ resilience for future strategy
• International best practice in ‘science and society’
dialogue
Contact
Details:
Dr Karen Cronin, ESR
[email protected]
Dr Nigel Larsen, Plant and Food
[email protected]
www.esr.cri.nz Home – Integrative Research for Sustainability –
Science Technology and Society – Future Foods
http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/socialscienceandsystemsthinking/Pages/FutureFoodTechnologiesresearchproject.aspx