Presentations

Keynote | Abstracts | Posters | NGO Marketplace

SESSION INFORMATION for

Keynote Address

A Path Appears: Transforming Lives, Creating Opportunity

Nicholas Kristof

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Columnist

Kristof's talk is based on a book of the same title that he co-wrote with wife Sheryl WuDunn. Using scrupulous research and reportage, he examines the success of domestic and global aid initiatives and the effectiveness of specific approaches to giving, offering practical advice on the best ways each of us can make a difference.

SESSION INFORMATION for

Panel Presentations

Opening Plenary – Assessing Risks and Promises of New Technologies
Friday, November 14, 8:45-9:45AM, Corwin Pavilion

How Advancing Technologies Are Making It Possible to Solve Humanity’s Grand Challenges – Creating Nightmares
Vivek Wadhwa, Fellow at Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center for corporate Governance, Stanford University; Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University; and Distinguished Fellow at Singularity University

Advances in fields such as sensors, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, robotics, 3D printing, and computing are making it possible to solve the problems of health, education, clean water, energy, and food and may lead to a world of abundance. But they also create many new dangers for humanity and challenges for distributing the prosperity we are creating. We’re headed into an era in which the basic needs of mankind can be met but there may not be employment for the majority of humans. While all boats will be lifted, the boats of the privileged will be lifted even higher and the gap will only grow wider. We are losing our privacy and creating exponential gaps in our laws. Whether the advances are good or bad is debatable but what is certain is that we are moving into this future—whether we are ready for it or not.

Understanding and Determining Product Safety: Who Decides and How?
Elizabeth Grossman, journalist and author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry and High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health

In the United States, children can drink fruit juice beverages made with Red Dye No. 40 and eat macaroni and cheese colored with Yellow Dye No. 5 and No. 6. In the U.K., these artificial colorings have been taken off the market due to health concerns, while in the rest of Europe, products that contain them must carry labels warning of the dyes’ potential adverse effect on children’s attention and behavior.Atrazine, estimated to be the most heavily used herbicide in the US was banned in Europe in 2003 due to concerns about its ubiquity as a water pollutant. Lead-based interior paints were banned in France, Belgium and Austria in 1909 and throughout much of the rest of Europe before 1940. The US did not ban these paints until 1978 even though health experts had, for decades, recognized the potentially acute and irreversible hazards of lead exposure. Neither the US Environmental Protection Agency nor Food and Drug Administration have full information about the environmental or health effects of the chemicals used in the billions of products Americans use, consume or encounter daily. As health hazards of one chemical product have been identified, that product is often replaced by another with similar hazards as has happened for decades with flame retardants. How did this happen? Why has defining and determining product safety proven so difficult? This talk will explore this dilemma and its solutions.

Session 1.1 – People, Water, and Energy: A Panel
Friday, November 14, 10-11:30AM, Santa Barbara Harbor Room

Chair and Moderator: Patricia Holden, Professor, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara

Panelists:

Katie Davis, Santa Barbara County Water Guardians

Dawn O’Bar, President, Unite to Light

Linsey Shariq, PhD Candidate and Floyd and Mary Schwall Fellow, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis

Larry Siegel, Director, Safe Water International

Clean water is a most fundamental need for all life, yet is not reliably available for all humanity globally. Energy sources for powering devices and machinery make fundamental improvements in human well-being, yet energy supplies are also not reliably available to all. There are other undeniable relationships between water and energy, including that large scale water purification and delivery demand high amounts of energy and, vice versa, large scale power and fuel generation demand and require water. In developing countries, there is a marked unevenness or absence of reliable water and energy provision, including for nighttime illumination. Futures include diffusion of local scale water purification strategies, and adoption of affordable nighttime illumination technologies to promote human health and education, thereby sustaining incentives and awareness for purifying water. Futures could also include industrial-scale fuel development, leading to degraded water supplies and propagating needs for water purification technologies. Advances in education may enhance local acceptance for new large-scale energy projects. How can water and energy futures be democratized, while protecting long term, human and environmental, conditions? In this session, expert panelists describe their work and views in water and energy, focusing on their passions, projects, and expert knowledge. The moderated discussion will attempt to stimulate cross view dialog, further exploring how democratization of energy and water resources can co-occur.

Session 1.2 – Advocating Equitable and Sustainable Outcomes of Emerging Technologies
Friday, November 14, 10-11:30AM, State Street Room

The Challenges and Opportunities of NGO Networks for the Regulation of Nanotechnologies
David Azoulay, Managing Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law

The presentation will look at the challenges and opportunities of establishing and operating NGO Networks for the regulation and oversight of nanotechnologies development. After looking at early initiatives to coordinate and structure civil society engagement of this issue (such as the principle for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials), the presentation will look in more details at the work undertaken under existing large international networks such as in particular the activities within the Friends of the Earth network and the work done under the IPEN nano working group. To look at different approaches, we will also look at the ongoing efforts to reinforce civil society’s engagement of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, as well as describe specific informal initiatives taken in Europe, and the US. In a second part, we will draw from these experiences to identify existing needs and challenges (including the wide diversity of political and development situations, the differences in capacity, technical knowledge, and expectations, the large number of arena and forum to try exert influence, the challenge of bringing together diverse expertise and work across legal and political systems), and explore ways to address those challenges.

Seeing the World through (Technology) Solutions: How to Match the World’s Exponentially Growing Demand for Solutions
Romanus Berg, CIO, Ashoka – Innovators for the Public

The discovery, implementation and replication of innovative solutions by individual entrepreneurs has historically tackled entrenched social problems from the ground up. Social Entrepreneurs like Dr. Adrian Mukhebi are not delivering social services or scaling technology solutions; rather, he is empowering communities of smallholder farmers in Kenya by connecting them with reliable, timely information, allowing them to share trusted practices and negotiate better prices for their crops. The power of these entrepreneurs lies in the “supply-side” authorship and distribution of universally-applicable, locally-relevant, and pattern-changing ideas.

Today, successful approaches often combine the innovation and market discipline of business entrepreneurship with long-term returns and empathy-based ethics. Pattern changing ideas championed by leaders working within- and across- a “team of teams” are leap-frogging traditional, isolated and incremental solutions. Communities that thrive have moved beyond the old hierarchical, repetitive mindsets toward distributed, shared leadership approaches.

Looking ahead, we see the “demand-side” for new solutions increasing in every major segment of society, from within and across every major region, institution, and field. The question we all face is: How will we will participate in and contribute to this historical moment? How will we transition from competition of individuals championing ideas to competition of solutions that champion communities, from distributed and isolated pockets of incremental, scaled repetition to fluid and open replication of pattern-changing ideas? Indeed community platforms and environments that foster "open innovation" have the potential to open new markets and ultimately break down the barriers to a more open, fulfilling and just world.

Session 1.3 – Linking Technologies and Societal Needs
Friday, November 14, 10-11:30AM, Corwin Pavilion

Construction Sets For Health
José Gómez-Márquez, Director, Little Devices Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Construction Sets for Health are part of a family of enabling technologies for health and wellness. They aim to radically redefine our relationship with devices that we use to heal, into ones we can also learn to invent. Dengue Diagnostic Legos, arbitraging global supply chains for instrumentation, and crowdsourced epidemiology of tuberculosis and infectious diseases are some of the resulting research areas that we have generated when medical device design is brought out of its engineering black box. In the developing world 90% of medical devices are donated. Here, we hunt for the stealth ingenuity that local healthcare workers use to solve everyday technology challenges. We learn from their approaches, explore ways to nurture their creativity and create affordable toolsets that lower the barriers of medical technology prototyping. Our interactive diagnostics transfer the capability to effectively self-report the disease burden across patient levels. For individuals, we designed behavioral diagnostics, a combination of verifiable interactive rapid tests and behavioral rewards in order to increase adherence to long term antibiotics, such as anti-tuberculosis drugs and chronic disease prescriptions. At the systems level, we are decentralizing disease surveillance by creating machine-readable immunoassays for the real-time epidemiology of dangerous pathogens such as dengue, Ebola, listeria and neglected tropical diseases. To inspire inventing learning and fabrication in healthcare settings, we created the MEDIKit project — a series of construction sets for medical prototyping. Reconfigurable building blocks enable doctors, nurses, and patients to construct drug delivery systems, modular lateral flow immunoassays, low cost microfluidics and other basic instrumentation.

Solar Recycling Incubator: A Systems Thinking Approach to Recycling Off Grid Solar in Africa
Sheila Davis, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Off-grid solar devices, such as solar lanterns and small solar home systems, are transforming communities around the world that lack access to an electrical grid. Nearly 1.3 billion people worldwide lack access to electricity, relying instead on expensive and polluting fuels such as kerosene, wood, and coal. Off-grid solar products, in the form of solar lanterns and small solar home systems (SHS), offer a safer, cheaper, and more sustainable option, and the use of such devices is increasing rapidly in Africa and Asia. Unfortunately, these products typically have short life spans—just three to five years—and are already creating a serious hazardous waste problem.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) is drawing on our extensive experience in electronics and solar sustainability to address this critical issue. The Sustainable Off-Grid Solar Recycling Incubator (or Incubator) will promote the market expansion of off-grid solar products, while at the same time developing realistic solutions to the recycling and reuse of these devices. The not-for-profit Incubator will partner with African communities, university researchers and students, and off-grid solar lighting companies to promote product innovation and sustainability. Utilizing off-the-shelf computer and information technology, the Incubator’s project will pilot innovative waste management systems that circumvent the need to build expensive conventional waste collection infrastructure and can be replicated in communities around the world.

NGO’s Support for Appropriate Technologies in Africa
Moses Kizza Musaazi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Makerere University; Founder, Technology for Tomorrow Ltd.

The desire and actual support of NGO’s in Africa has steadily increased in the last three decades. In several cases, the support has been in terms of human resource, skills development and of course financial. In as far as technological support is concerned, the support has been in ‘off-the-shelf’ machinery that have worked elsewhere especially in the Western World. However, experience and time have proved that sustainability of such technologies has been difficult and expensive especially after the NGO support has ended. Therefore, in recent years, there has arisen a new school of thought, lending itself to a paradigm shift, to innovate and employ appropriate technologies that would sustainably make a positive change to people in Africa especially those at the Base of the Pyramid. An emerging trend in several Universities in the West e.g. through the several Chapters of Engineers Without Borders, is the quest for students to help is solving societal problems through innovation of appropriate technologies.

Moses Musaazi has been part of this new wave whereby he has, upon request by NGO’s and on his own initiative, innovated and disseminated several appropriate technologies that are making a positive impact to the lives of many. For more information, see: www.t4tafrica.co.

Plenary – Does Better Technology Make Stronger Democracy?
Friday, November 14, 1:15-2:15PM, Corwin Pavilion

Adopting, Adapting, and Accelerating Commercial Technology for Humanitarian Good
Thomas Tighe, President and CEO of Direct Relief

As complex situations change in rapid and unpredictable ways, having access to the right information often can mean the difference between life and death. To be adaptive and responsive as international actors, remaining attuned to the expressed needs of local communities, also requires an information infrastructure as rich as that typically found in the commercial sector. Yet information systems cannot be constructed easily, if at all, in the midst of chaos. To have access to critical disaster response information means getting the right systems in place before events happen. Direct Relief CEO Thomas Tighe will discuss the need to extend the concepts of disaster preparedness and response from the sphere of humanitarian aid to that of commercial-grade technologies, information, and analysis.

ICTs and Democratization: Material Challenges
Lisa Parks, Professor of Film and Media Studies and Director of the Center for Information Technology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara

Social science and humanities scholars who study transformations of the digital age often assume that expanding access to information technologies inevitably enhances democratic processes. Unquestioned investment in this assumption runs the risk of suppressing material challenges to ICT access, usability, literacy, and sustainability that persist in much of the developing world, since it privileges the ideal of technologized democracy over peoples’ actual circumstances, interests, needs and desires. To probe these issues further, this talk draws on two recent studies of ICT use in Zambia, one focused on Internet access and affordability in the rural community of Macha, and another focused on Internet freedom in the urban capital of Lusaka. Engaging with findings from these studies, the talk first explores how material conditions such as uneven electrical access, software updates, dust, technological breakdowns, and water shortages can impede efforts to achieve technologized democracy. Second, I explore how digital activists in Zambia have contended with material threats and challenges such as arrest and imprisonment, injury, surveillance, and exile. In the end, I argue that information technologies can only support “democracy” if issues of difference, inequality, and repression are recognized and confronted at various stages of design, testing, installation, and use.

Session 2.1 – Working Upstream: Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and NGO Influence in Governance
Friday, November 14, 2:15-3:30PM, Corwin Pavilion

Engaging NGOs in Nanotechnology: Perspectives from the Early Days
Kristen Kulinowski, Research Staff Member, US Science and Technology Policy Institute

NGOs took early notice of nanotechnology, just as it began to emerge in scientific funding circles as an organizing theme for research and development. The early warnings from a small number of vocal groups addressed a range of possible dystopian futures from environmental contamination to unwelcome shifts in labor economies and disenfranchisement of developing nations. As the research evolved, so too did the civil societal conversations about nanotech risk, particularly in the US, where a broader set of actors emerged even as the discussion topics narrowed to focus more on environmental, health and safety issues and less on larger social justice themes. This talk will address the evolution of NGO action on nanotechnology in the US, explore the challenges for NGOs in upstream engagement, and propose some mechanisms for NGOs to influence technology policy.

Engagement @ the Technological Frontier: New approaches to governance from the NGO community (a DIYbio perspective)
Todd Kuiken, Senior Program Associate, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson Center

This talk will showcase how the Woodrow Wilson Center has engaged with the DIYbio community and developed governance strategies that have enabled the community to expand while addressing issues such as biosecurity, biosafety, environmental impacts, and regulatory oversight. It will explore how emerging technologies are changing how NGOs need to think about engagement and adapt their strategies through the prism of the Wilson Center’s work with the DIYbio community.

The partnership between DuPont and EDF: questioning and modifying the traditional division of labor between industry and NGOs in the governance of emerging technologies
Lotte Krabbenborg, Postdoctoral Researcher, Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands

Session 2.1 – Working Upstream: Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and NGO Influence in Governance
Friday, November 14, 2:15-3:30PM, Corwin Pavilion

NGOs are seen as new dialogue partner of science, industry and government in the development of newly emerging technologies. They are now invited to participate in all kinds of spaces for interaction, like multistakeholder consortia, and large scale societal dialogues, already in the early stages of the development.

NGOs are invited because they are seen as ‘voices of civil society’: knowledgeable in giving voice to concerns, needs and wishes of society. By engaging in dialogue with them, the idea is that technology developers can become more responsive to societal needs and include these in their decision making processes.

Two problems arise with such a positioning of NGOs. First, NGOs do not always see themselves as representing voices of civil society and second, such a positioning underestimates the socio-technical complexity. It assumes that societal issues are given, while in the early stages newly emerging science and technology is still indeterminate. What kind of societal issues might emerge depends on what kind of considerations, decisions and actions are made by technology developers. What is at stake, for whom, and what kind of decisions are to be made, must all be inquired into during an innovation trajectory, requiring also the active participation of technology developers.

Chemical company DuPont and non-governmental organization Environmental Defense Fund managed to create a space for a joint inquiry for the development, use and disposal of nanomaterials. Based upon a multilevel analysis of this novel partnership, I will discuss requirements for a joint inquiry, and the ambivalent reactions the partnership received in the nano-community. I will conclude by drawing lessons for a more productive involvement of NGOs as new dialogue partner, arguing that the governance challenge is not to have more participation of NGOs but to establish a vital public sphere that includes emerging technologies as topic for deliberation and negotiation.

Session 2.2 – New Media and NGO Organizing: Opportunity, Efficacy, and Risk
Friday, November 14, 2:15-3:30PM, State Street Room

Worker-NGO Unity in China
Jenny Chan, Lecturer of Contemporary Chinese Studies, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, University of Oxford

With workers’ growing awareness of the opportunities presented by the fact that giant electronics corporations like Foxconn face pressures to meet quotas for new models and holiday season purchases, they have come together at the dormitory, workshop, or factory level to voice demands or to stage protests. Access to internet and social networking technology also enables workers to disseminate open letters and to tweet urgent appeals for support (Qiu 2009; Fuchs 2014). Some have joined with labor campaign groups, such as the Hong Kong-based Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM), to pressure Apple and other IT brands to respond to their demands. SACOM co-produces videos with workers through interviewing, and disseminates them online. While the response of the target companies remains uncertain, workers have taken the initiative and leadership in a nascent labor movement: they speak in Mandarin and provide us with photos and other kinds of evidence which exposes the abuses in the global production of the iPhones and iPads. This alliance of workers and non-governmental labor organizations in grassroots organizing is a response to limitations of workplace-based dispute resolution institutions and constraints in union organizations in China.

From Ladders to Distributions: Understanding the Role of Low Cost Participation Engagement
Jennifer Earl, Professor of Sociology, University of Arizona

So-called slacktivism has been widely criticized as either a waste of time or even a diversion from more long-lasting or costly forms of activism. In this talk, I rely on foundational social movement studies research to argue that in the absence of low-cost and ephemeral opportunities for engagement, many people would fail to act altogether. Thus, instead of imagining more ephemeral forms of online engagement as lower rungs on a ladder of activism, it might be better to conceptualization these low cost forms of engagement as part of a healthy distribution of action in a larger movement. This paper sketches out what such an understanding of engagement looks like and connects this argument to potential action pathways for social movement organizations.

Anonymity and Accountability: How Privacy Enables NGO Work
Karen Reilly, Development Director, TOR Project

Privacy and anonymity can enhance development projects by providing safer feedback channels. Are you holding governments accountable for corruption, poor service, or atrocities? Then surveillance is a top concern - likewise for dealing with sensitive health issues. Do you want honest feedback about your organization's performance? Give your beneficiaries and partners a way to tell you in confidence. In this presentation, I will delve into *why* privacy needs to be part of project design from the beginning, and emphasize that there are organizations working on the technology needed. There is a gap between ICT4D and the net freedom community, even though the potential for harm from surveillance is growing.

Session 2.3 – Creating Safe Space: Leveraging GIS for Human Health and the Environment
Friday, November 14, 2:15-3:30PM, Santa Barbara Harbor Room

Where is Humanitarian Space?
Andrew Schroeder, Director of Research and Analysis, Direct Relief

Humanitarian space, or the area within which institutions of the international humanitarian system may be authorized to act upon the needs of local populations, comes into being at points of social crisis throughout the world. This space does not exist prior to action or knowledge, however, but must be produced in and through social action and technologically mediated knowledge. New spatial technologies, from GIS (geographic information systems) to satellite communications to unmanned aerial vehicles, perhaps because of their privileged claim to specifically spatial forms of knowledge, have recently played a central role in the production of where humanitarian space may be said to exist, which actors may act within it, what may be known about humanitarian action, and what sorts of outcomes may have been produced from those actions. This paper uses the example of the recent crisis in the Philippines following Typhoon Yolanda to understand the production of humanitarian space by spatial technologies used in different ways by combinations of international, national and local humanitarian actors.

Boundary Organizations Pushing the Frontier of Spatially Explicit and Collaborative Decision-Making about the Environment
John Gallo, Senior Scientist, Conservation Biology Institute

Boundary organizations for the environment bridge different scales, and/or themes, such as mediating the relationship between science and policy. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice making them well placed to fulfill this role. This is increasingly important in this new era of climate change, as it allows institutional processes to be more flexible and adaptive. Recent technological advances of the internet and of geographic information systems (GIS) make new heights of communication and collaboration possible. If this potential is realized, the number of stakeholders involved in land-use decision making and management could be increased by several orders of magnitude. People could be involved providing values and opinions as stakeholders. They could also have the option of helping as citizen scientists, including providing observation data, but also in exploring web-accessible spatial data to comment and suggest analyses. This can be done in-person via workshops as well as asynchronously on each person’s web browser to fit their schedule. Conservation Biology Institute is an example of boundary organization NGO that is moving forward with several aspects of this vision, including the creation and ongoing development of Data Basin, an online GIS platform that anyone can join, upload data and share online maps. I’ll use our role in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as illustration. But the broader vision is so expansive that it will likely take a network of boundary organizations embracing the notion of “open science” to move forward in a substantial manner.

Working with Data, Maps, and Participatory GIS Research to Understand the Impacts of Oil and Gas Extraction
Kirk Jalbert, PhD Candidate, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Visiting Research Scientist, FracTracker Alliance

Inadequacies in data transparency and accessibility can significantly affect public understanding and trust in the regulatory management of the oil and gas industry. This presentation highlights a number of data interpretation and GIS mapping projects launched by NGOs and academic outreach programs to better collect and share unconventional drilling data with the public. The position of these projects outside of industry and government often create a better approximation of the general public’s experience when working with oil and gas data, thus increases the potential for non-governmental organizations to fill economic, social, health, and environmental knowledge gaps created by lagging and/or incomplete regulatory oversight. Evidence also shows that by welcoming community-based participatory GIS research, through citizen science for example, these projects create meaningful pathways between raw data and refined information that can be used by the public, thus fostering broader participation in environmental governance and empower local communities with new knowledge in mitigating the potential impacts of extraction industries.

Plenary – Defining and Achieving Social Responsibility
Saturday, November 15, 8:30-9:30AM, Corwin Pavilion

Between Innovation, Creativity and Routine: Non-Governmental Organizations in the Twenty First Century
David Lewis, Professor of Social Policy and Development, London School of Economics and Political Science

Since NGOs rose to prominence to two decades ago in the field of development, we have seen them come full circle from initial discovery in the 1990s as a possible 'magic bullet' for development problems and the full-scale embrace of NGOs as key development actors through to an inevitable backlash. Today, there is an increased interest in for-profit solutions to development problems, a blurring of boundaries between NGOs and the private sector, and a relentless emphasis on the idea of 'innovation'. Is there still a place for NGOs? In this
presentation, I argue that NGOs still offer a distinctive not-for-profit organizational model based on their multiple accountabilities, including a flexible capacity to involve people at community level in solving problems, and an ability to demonstrate that while innovation can be a useful component of success, a creative approach to routine work is just as important. In his presentation, David Lewis will be drawing on arguments and examples from his new book Nongovernmental Organizations, Management and Development (Routledge 2014).

Emancipating Transformations: From Technology Policy to Innovation Democracy
Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, SPRU and STEPS Centre, University of Sussex

Worldwide, current technology policy tends to treat innovation in each domain as if a one-track race. Attention fixates around technological pathways most strongly promoted by incumbent interests. Questions typically limit to: “yes or no?”, “how fast?”, ‘who’s ahead?’ with the favoured trajectory – often accompanied by anxious technical warnings over consequences of ‘falling behind’.

So debates typically become highly polarised as ‘for or against’ technologies like GM, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals or agrochemicals. Forces that drive the directions for innovation remain seriously under-interrogated – around powerful interests, privileged markets, intellectual property, industrial concentration and the military.

This entirely misconceives the branching evolutionary nature of innovation – as processes of collective exploratory choice. So, crucial underlying issues are neglected, around: ‘which way?’, ‘what alternatives?’, ‘who says?’ and ‘why?’. Space for contention further reduces in regulatory debates allowing only for limited interrogation of ‘risk’ – excluding intractable forms of uncertainty. And public scepticism tends to be treated as a pathology, controversy as a problem. Policy and academic analysis alike revolve around under-specified notions of ‘responsibility’ and ‘engagement’ – asserting the supposedly self-evident desirability of efficiency, stability, trust and acceptance.

What all this serves to suppress, are the crucial roles of civil society and social movements. As shown by the history of successive (ongoing) emancipations (of workers, colonies, women and oppressed ethnicities and sexualities) – it is here that society forges the normative frameworks and political gradients that define what is meant by ‘progress’ in the first place. Without this, there would be no technologies for ‘sustainability’ or ‘development’. And many of the most progressive innovations themselves – like wind power, green chemistry, community ownership – also owe more to collective action, than social control.

So: innovation policy needs to be more explicitly recognised on all political sides, as a key arena for democratic struggle and social choice. But equally important in a world where social, environmental and development agendas are themselves becoming increasingly scientistic and technocratic: this democratising of innovation may offer means to emancipate the increasingly suppressed energies of democracy itself.

Session 3.1 – Worker Representation in the Fast-Changing Workplace: The Role of Unions in Responsible Development
Saturday, November 15, 9:30-11AM, State Street Room

Workers’ concerns on nanotechnology EHS issues and the regulation agenda
Noela Invernizzi, Public Policy Program, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil

In previous research (Invernizzi 2012) I showed that since 2004 a group of national trade unions and international trade union federations started mobilizing their constituencies and making public their concerns on the occupational risks of nanotechnology.

Up to 2010, trade unions´ public declarations on nanotechnology EHS issues in several regions of the world focused on calling attention on the diffusion of these new technologies and their potential risks, and emphasized the scarcity of research on the topic, the lack of transparent communication and the urgent need for regulation. The interlocutors of these statements were the governments and their regulatory agencies, the public and, to a lesser degree, international bodies. Over this first period, two international federations of unions, ETUC (European Trade Union Conferederation) and IUF (Latin American Section of the International Food and Agriculture Workers), and one national union, the Australian Congress of Trade Unions (ACTU), were at the forefront, with a very dynamic and leading involvement with the issue.

From 2010 on, we can observe different paths of activities that are a clear reflection of the uneven advancement of the regulatory discussion around the world. ETUC in Europe and ACTU in Australia have entered in a second phase of activities, characterized by an intense involvement in the controverted regulatory process. Their statements have become very concrete, dealing with specific aspects of the regulation, and contesting the general trend towards maintaining the existing regulation as sufficient. In addition, they have been able to produce considerable instructive materials to inform their constituencies.

In Latin America, unions remain in the first phase, advancing their positions on nanotechnology risks and the need for regulation, and providing some information to the workers. An exception is the case of the Chemical Workers in Brazil, a trade union that has been successful in negotiating specific clauses on nanotechnology in the collective agreement signed with industry. Since the regulatory process is incipient in the region, there is no further advancement in this regard.

It was noted a very restricted activity form unions in the USA and Canada so far, however further data mining is still needed for the period 2010-2014.

In a second part of this presentation, I map out three parallel sets of events: the most renowned scientific evidences on nanotechnology occupational risks, the reactions to these data by regulatory bodies and international institutions, and the trade unions´ positions and actions. It is possible to see that, in a general context in which governance of nanotechnology has combined a progressive (but still contradictory) acknowledgment of nanotechnology potential risks, with a predominant preference for the soft law approaches, in spite of some advances, workers still find themselves in a very frail, unprotected position.

Unions and Potentially Hazardous Technologies: From the Shop Floor to the Halls of Congress
Darius Sivin, Health and Safety Department, International Union, UAW

Workers tend to be most concerned with acute safety hazards. Unions employ technical staff to pay attention to potential hazards, such as nanotechnology, that their members may not have the expertise for. Inevitably this leads to an important question about democracy: Is it more democratic for the staff to devote resources to concerns that the members already have or to educate them about concerns that the staff has? In the case of nanotechnology, we don’t even always know which workers are potentially exposed, due to the difficulty of tracking nanomaterials in the supply chain and the opaqueness of many safety data sheets as to whether the products they describe contain nanomaterials. The fact that OSHA standard setting for chemical hazards has come to a near halt says something about the functioning of democracy or lack thereof. The only occupational exposure limits being developed for nanomaterials are by EPA. Originally these were being developed in violation of the hierarchy of controls, with the priority placed on personal protective equipment. A coalition of unions and environmental organizations succeeded in making improvements. The degree to which this was democratically accomplished will be discussed. Finally, a true example of democratizing technology control of chemical carcinogens. A UAW Local identified a large number of cancer cases among its active and retired membership. About 50% of these were breast cancer. The International Union assisted the Local in negotiating contract language calling for removal of carcinogens from the facility or engineering controls to eliminate exposure. This language is now being implemented by a joint committee of management and hourly workers who have received training from the International Union.

The working conditions involved in the production and use of nanomaterials: What are the issues for workers?
Aida Ponce Del Castillo, Senior Researcher, European Trade Union Institute

Nanomaterials are coming onto the market in a widening range of uses at a dizzying pace, but the impact on society is going largely undiscussed. Equally, occupational health is a specific aspect of that impact are the most worrying issues of discussion at the regulatory debate.

This presentation takes into account a literature review of scientific data on occupational safety and nanomaterials. This work has observed that current data are scant and very patchy. Additionally, current EU law does not address the specific properties of nanomaterials. Workers’ and consumers’ health will go unprotected unless EU law is adapted to take into account the specific requirements of these new risk factors. And that means production and marketing rules as much as the Directives on the protection of workers’ health.

This presentation sets out to do three things: give a better understanding of how nanomaterials impact on workers’ health; number of occupational health and safety challenges therefore stand to be addressed; and suggest ways for trade unions and occupational health professionals to ensure better prevention.

Session 3.2 – Does Corporate Social Responsibility Guarantee Worker’s Rights?
Saturday, November 15, 9:30-11AM, Santa Barbara Harbor Room

Making Blue the Next Green: Achieving Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy Richard P. Appelbaum, MacArthur Foundation Chair in Global & International Studies, Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara

The most important players in the global economy today are transnational corporations with global supply chains. Their highly competitive pricing strategies frequently result in strong cost-cutting measures, which are then transmitted throughout their supply chains. This all too often results in harsh working conditions and low wages at every point along the supply chain, from the Asian, African, or Latin American factory to checkout counter. The legal, moral, and economic status of those who work in this new system has become a flashpoint for controversy and concern. As a consequence, many transnational enterprises have moved to a model of self-regulation, establishing corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments, consulting with academics and government regulators, and partnering with nongovernmental organizations concerned with labor and environmental rights. Leading corporations such as Nike, The Gap, and Wal-Mart have adopted codes of conduct that direct their suppliers to behave according to ethical business practices, while signaling their customers that such practices are reflected in their products. The growing interest in equitable business practices is reflected in the large number of non-governmental organizations and institutions that have been created in recent years, as well as the theoretical and empirical attention that has been given to these issues in the scholarly literature and in business school curricula. This paper examines these developments, focusing on efforts to compel brands to make their supply chains compliant with basic worker rights standards. It draws on experiences from the Worker Rights Consortium, as well as the growing activism in China.

Rana Plaza, a Year Later: Will the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety Make a Difference in Worker’s Lives?
Scott Nova, Executive Director, Worker Rights Consortium

Since the April 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza industrial building in Dhaka, Bangladesh – possibly the worst factory disaster in history, claiming more than 1,100 lives – steps have been taken to hold brands and retailers responsible for the independent contract factories that provide their labor. Two very different approaches have resulted. The Accord on Fire andBuilding Safety, now signed by nearly 190 (mainly European) firms, and the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, signed by two dozen (mainly U.S.) firms, led by Gap and Walmart. The Accord, unlike the Alliance, is legally binding on its signatories, and obligates them to cover, if necessary, the cost of renovating their contract factories. The Accord, unlike the Alliance, also involves union participation and leadership. Scott Nova is one of the architects of the Accord, and in this talk will discuss its historic implications for workers' rights in the global economy.

Can Worker-Sourced Intelligence Drive Better Outcomes for Workers?
Ari Olmos, Vice President of Operations, LaborVoices

While trade unions and organized labor remain the gold standard for ensuring workers’ rights, new technologies and methods for surveying workers on their own working conditions have the potential to help a variety of stakeholders: from CSR managers, to unions, to workers themselves. Ari Olmos will discuss how LaborVoices is using mobile technology to poll workers on their working conditions in Latin America and South Asia, and what impacts this approach might have for workers.

Session 3.3 – NGO-Government Interactions: Government Perspectives
Saturday, November 15, 9:30-11AM, Corwin Pavilion

Linking Science to Policy: The Role of NGOs in Supporting Evidence Based Policy Making
Rachel Parker, Senior Research Advisor, US Agency for International Development

The United States Agency for International Development launched the U.S. Global Development Lab in April 2014 with the aim of transforming the development enterprise through Science, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships. Within the Lab, the Research Partnerships for Development team focuses not only on supporting scientific and technological solutions to development challenges through a competitive funding program, but also on strengthening the broader research and innovation ecosystem. Through a partnership with a Boston-based NGO, Seeding Labs, for example the Lab is facilitating research capacity building in developing countries. This partnership increases access to world class research facilities for STEM students and workers and also enables developing country researchers to more fully engage with an international science community.

Nano Regulation: Addressing Complexity and Consensus in Brazil
Flávio Plentz, General Coordinator, Micro and Nanotechnology Department, Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

Nanotechnology has consolidated a dynamics of rapid development, and introduction of new products and process is growing rapidly in virtually all economic sectors. There are over 2000 products incorporating nanotechnology, or claiming to incorporate nanotechnologies, including many consumer products as cosmetics. If on one hand Nanotechnology revolutionizes society by introducing new products and processes, it also brought a growing concern about the risks associated with its disseminated use. As the consumer and workers perception of has become conservative, companies began to retract investments and also suppress information about their activities in Nanotechnology. The regulation of both "Nano" R&D and products went to the top of the agenda both governments and the scientific and technological community. The regulation of nanotechnology is much more complex than previously thought and, indeed, today, there is no consensus on basic scientific information to support the creation an appropriate regulatory system. The regulatory framework must be a system that, at the same time, protects the consumer, the workers, the environment and also promotes and sustain the rich R&D and the innovation that does have the potential to greatly benefit the world. There is a worldwide effort to understand the essential aspects for example, of the interaction between Manufactured Nano Materials (MNM) and biological and ecological systems. I will present the recent organization of the Brazilian Nanotechnology Initiative and its governance structure with special attention to the actions towards accelerating the regulatory process of nanotechnology in Brazil.

Scientific Contestations over “Toxic Trespass”: The Health and Regulatory Implications of Chemical Biomonitoring
Bhavna Shamasunder, Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Occidental College

Biomonitoring has chronicled hundreds of synthetic chemicals in human bodies. Biomonitoring technology measures synthetic chemicals in human blood, breast milk, fat, and other tissues. With the proliferation of biomonitoring studies from diverse stakeholders comes the need to better understand the public health consequences of synthetic chemical exposures. Fundamental disagreements among scientific experts as to the nature and purpose of biomonitoring data guide our investigation. We examine interpretations of biomonitoring evidence through interviews with 42 expert scientists from industry, EHJM (environmental health and justice movement organizations), academia, and regulatory agencies and through participant observation in scientific meetings where biomonitoring evidence is under debate. Both social movements and industry stakeholders frame the meaning of scientific data in ways that advance their own interests. EHJM scientists argue that biomonitoring data demonstrates involuntary “toxic trespass” and underscores a policy failure that allows for the pervasive use of untested chemicals. Industry scientists seek to subsume biomonitoring data under existing regulatory risk assessment paradigms. Our analysis reveals one area of convergence and seven areas of contestation regarding the scientific, public health, and policy implications of biomonitoring evidence, among regulatory, industry and EHJM. These areas of scientific contestation provide insight into the persistent challenges of regulating chemicals even in the midst of mounting evidence of widespread exposure to multiple compounds with implications for human health.

Closing Plenary – Responsible Development, Responsible Innovation: Global Governance of New Technologies
Friday, November 15, 12:45-2:45PM, Corwin Pavilion

Mobilizing Scientists and Academics to Stop Killer Robots
Peter Asaro, Assistant Professor and Director of Graduate Programs at The New School; Co-Founder and Vice-Chair of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control; and Spokesperson for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots

In my presentation I will recount the formation and work of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, a group of scientists and academics concerned about the expanding use of drones, robots and autonomous systems by militaries and police forces. I will also describe their role in the NGO coalition Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, through advocacy in various bodies at the United Nations. I will discuss the challenges of involving and mobilizing scientists and academics in advocacy work, as well as the benefits of leveraging their expertise in trying to shape the future of automated police and military technologies.

Dynamics of Governance for Genetically Engineered Organisms: NGO Participation and Influence
Jennifer Kuzma, Goodnight-NCGSK Foundation Distinguished Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University

The history of the governance of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in the United States reflects a contested and dynamic system. NGOs, particularly consumer and environmental-oriented groups, have had significant influences on this system. In this talk, I will discuss how phases of GEOs governance have been at least in part, and arguably largely, defined by their work. Examples of how they have affected change and the nature of changes will be presented. The process of affecting change has occurred in different subsystems of governance, including the areas of law, communication, politics, and scientific research. The outcomes have varied, and some recent ones have been unintentional, system surprises that seem to be in opposition to the original goals of the NGOs. The outcomes will also be placed in the context of responsible innovation and whether they have encouraged or detracted from practices of responsibility in the development and deployment of GEOs. Finally, I will speculate on the continued involvement of NGOs as GEOs expand beyond crops to animals and insects and as the technologies for engineering mature towards synthetic biology.

What Has Happened to Solar Innovation?
Chris Newfield, Professor of Literature and American Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

We often assume that industry wants innovation and that market forces support it. But neither is generally true of solar photovoltaic innovation, where utilities are foot-dragging on PV installation booms enabled by price drops that stem largely from non-market industrial policies in other countries. I’ll explore this issue through clips from the film that Zach Horton and I are completing, in which 2^ndand 3^rdgeneration PV scientists, executives, and investors in the U.S. and Germany confront the migration of the research and manufacturing of new solar technologies to better policy climes. How should US energy policy respond to their concerns? Will the public support “jobless” R&D funding? Should innovation policy favor commodification of existing technology wherever in the world it occurs? Should it support emerging technologies in this area of social need when it has stopped attracting investor interest? The struggles of various non-silicon PV communities offer interesting answers to these questions.

Power in the Public Sphere
Simone Pulver, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

The expansion of transnational civil society over the past decades led to increased expectations regarding a re-imagining world politics. Over time, expectations were tempered as research identified barriers which limit the influence of global civil society actors and networks. This article re-expands the scope of action of global civil society by focusing not only on the narrow project of influencing the outcomes of particular negotiations but also on the broader project of reshaping arenas of global governance to function as “global public spheres,” i.e. political arenas in which legitimacy is predicated on rational deliberation of the common interest. There are three “public sphere” mechanisms by which transnational civil society can create opportunities for influence in international politics. First, civil society groups can engage in the longer-term project of creating governance arenas that function as public spheres. Second, they can shift the locus of decision-making from closed arenas, where structural and material power determine the outcomes of bargaining, to more public arenas, where positions must be justified in terms of widely shared interests. Finally, civil society groups can enhance their influence by framing their interests as being in the global public good and shaping definitions of the global public good embedded in various international governance arenas; a task achieved more easily by those representing broad public constituencies than those pursuing particular interests from positions of structural power. These three “public sphere” mechanisms, however, are vulnerable to three counter-strategies or “privatizations”: Redefining political problems as market problems, needing economic rather than public solutions; removing issues from public discussion to be resolved by expert opinion; and shifting focus from global arenas to domestic implementation.

When Everyone Can Prove Who They Are
Tarun Wadhwa, Researcher at the Hybrid Reality Institute and author of Identified: Why They are Getting to Know Everything about Us

Today we are experiencing a widespread transformation in the way in which we are being identified by governments and institutions. This change has been most dramatic for the hundreds of millions living around the world who can’t currently prove who they are; it is often the poorest communities that lack proper identification documents. They have been forced to live at the margins of society - excluded from finance, denied their share of government services, and restricted in their abilities to move and grow. Yet technological advances are now making it possible to provide these people with a portable, verifiable digital identity for the first time - and as a result, many developing nations are creating identification systems far more sophisticated than what we have in the Western world. Successful implementation has shown to be far more complicated than just finding the right technology to use, identity is an issue that deals directly with a people’s culture, history, and status within a society. Governments and NGOs around the world have to manage balancing security, privacy, and power concerns with the need for economic development. In the next two decades we have an unprecedented opportunity to achieve a major human rights victory by ending the problems associated with lack of identification, but reaching that will require a delicate and changing balance of social, political, and technological factors.

SESSION INFORMATION for

Poster Session

12:15-1:15PM Corwin Pavilion

Governing Ability Expectations: A Prerequisite (or Accompanied) Goal to the Democratization of Technology

Lucy Diep¹and Gregor Wolbring
¹Graduate Student, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, University of Calgary

Technologies are regarded as having political content to “the extent that it involves, facilitates, or limits the exercise of power over human beings”. The extent to which technologies can exercise its power has been argued to be driven by ability expectations in accordance to the status quo, as such, the democratization of technologies is, by process, an exercise of ability expectations to the technology’s design, accessibility, and distribution. Therefore, who is involved in the democratization of technologies becomes an important component to the technology’s outcome and its hierarchical status. To be part of the democratization process involves certain abilities and capacities to influence the discourse, as such marginalized groups, such as impaired-labelled groups, often experience under-representation and exclusion from this democratic practice as they face barriers meeting these ability requirements. This begs the question of whether these practices are democratic by definition. We posit further that the goal of democratization of technology is not going far enough but that it has to be accompanied or even proceeded by the goal of democratization of ability expectations and their governance. The governance of ability expectations pose numerous challenges for the ones that do not have the power to shape and control ability expectations especially marginalized groups and their NGO’s. We illuminate with examples from the academic discourses of brain machine interfaces and social robotics how the power to define ability expectations plays itself out in regards to defining the target of the application and the challenges for democratization of ability expectation governance.

NGOs and the Governance of Genetically Modified Crops in Kenya: Democratic Implications of a Techno-Civil Society

Matthew Harsh, Assistant Professor, Centre for Engineering in Society, Concordia University

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are prominent actors in the governance of agricultural biotechnologies and genetically modified (GM) crops in Kenya. They are at the center of partnerships between scientists, corporations, regulators, and farmers. Tis poster uses ethnographic data to analyze how NGOs in ag-biotech are able to obtain influence and social agency. I argue that NGOs can obtain funding and access to key decision-makers because they create and manage organizational identities that link two powerful ideologies: the notion that the advancement of technology is tightly coupled to societal progress, and the view that a strong civil society is necessary for an informed and representative democracy. I introduce the concept of techno-civil society to understand the merger of these ideologies and illustrate how NGOs frame themselves as neutral representatives of farmers and the general public, as apolitical educators and science communicators and as servants of progress. NGOs conduct trainings ad workshops about GM that aim to 'demystify' science. However, these engagements tend not to lead to increased representation of citizens and their values in decisions about how to develop new technologies. Rather, engagements helped produce a scientize decision-making system that was closed and polarized. The argument does not condemn NGOs, they still could engage citizens in a manner that is more bi-directional and context sensitive. But discussion and debate about values connected to GM crops should come to the forefront of such engagements.

Nano Twitter: Can Social Media Provide a Means for Public Engagement about Emerging Technologies

Richard Appelbaum, Barbara Herr Harthorn, Ariel Hasell,¹ and Galen Stocking
¹Graduate Student, Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara

The science policy community often decries the lack of public understanding about emerging technologies and the potential negative impact this can have on the research community and public policy. Several studies have examined potential public engagement, but this has been largely limited to media like newspapers and blogs that force the public to seek information. This study examines discussion about nanotechnology on Twitter, which offers the potential for more incidental exposure. We collected all nanotechnology Tweets from 2010-2014 and analyzed their language to determine if they were geared toward discussing nanotechnology at an expert level or explaining it in more common language. We also categorized these tweets into posts about research or product. We show that descriptions of products prevail over descriptions of research or any explanations and show that there is an increase in descriptions of products leads to an increase in Tweets explaining how those products work. The results suggest that baic explanations of research may not be filtering down to interested publics, limiting their potential engagement with the scientific community and creating unrealistic product oriented expectations.

Integration of Structuration Theory and Social Capital Theory: Implications for Non-Profit Organizational Management Research in Science and Technology and Underrepresented Communities

Sheron Nicole King, NSF-IGERT Fellow, Doctoral Student in Public Administration, and Research Assistant in at the Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University

People of color and women, especially those living below the poverty line, are less likely to have social capital than their counterparts. Lack of social capital negatively correlates with job promotion, owning homes, financial stability, and inherited social networks. They also have less influence on policy, and are less likely to create social mobility for themselves. One of the areas where this gap becomes evident is in the development and utilization of technological and scientific advances. Specifically, a gap lies between populations that have access to scientific and technological advancements, including but not limited to medical treatments, decision makers, and information surrounding scientific principles and emerging technology. The development and use of genetically engineered food is one area of science and technology where this gap can be seen. As NPOs/NGOs increasingly provide civic goods and services for underrepresented communities, including addressing hunger and food security, questions arise for social scientists and practitioners as to how NPO/NGO management can be more conducive for building technology and science social capital within these communities on an international stage. My theoretical integration attempts to explore how a bridge between structuration theory and social capital theory can be used by NPOs/NGOs, as the world of technology and science changes, to create and expand their consumers’ social capital.

Ranking Digital Rights
Nathalie Marechal, Doctoral student, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California

The global public sphere, which is where ideas are generated, debated, and contested, is increasingly mediated by information and communication technology (ICT) companies with varied awareness of and commitment to human rights principles such as privacy and freedom of expression. Despite initial enthusiasm for the potential of ICTs to revolutionize the work of democracy and human rights activists, their track record has been rather dimmer. From the high-profile blunders of Internet giants Yahoo and Google upon entering the Chinese market in the late 90s and early 2000s to the ongoing revelations about governments’ mass surveillance of their own citizens, it is increasingly apparent that “In the twenty-first century, many of the most acute political and geopolitical struggles will involve access to and control of information,” as Rebecca MacKinnon warned in her 2012 book “Consent of the Networked.” MacKinnon’s Ranking Digital Rights project is developing a methodology for evaluating and ranking the world’s major Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies on policies and practices related to free expression and privacy in the context of international human rights law. While a number of organizations conduct similar rankings of countries or U.S. companies, to date there is no comprehensive evaluation of the companies that provide access - and also barriers - to the global public sphere. In this poster session I plan to present the project, its methodology and its theory of change while situating it in the scholarly literature on information controls and NGO activism.

Threads of Alliance: Grassroots and Flaxroots in Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada

Andie Diane Palmer,¹ Makere Stewart-Harawira
¹Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta

In British Columbia, the Tsilhqot'in and Secwepemc First Nations oppose the proposed construction of a vast gold mine and associated transmission lines in their territories. The emerging technologies of extraction, driven in part by $12000/ounce gold, and recent sweeping changes to environmental legislation that prefigure Indigenous community concerns as an obstacles to a greater, 'public' interest, make the formulation of strategic community responses all the more urgent. One way these First Nations and their counterparts in Aotearoa New Zealand disrupt the imposition of state and commercial interests is through the strength of their own traditions, which emphasize an ethic of hospitality as part of host-newcomer relations, spiritual connections to ancestors in a physical domain where cultural practices are maintained. The formation of strategic antipodean alliances compatible with their systems of belief and preferred modes of collective action includes a non-non-governmental (NNGO) response, in the form of a Reciprocal International Observer Team (RIOT) that strengthens their community-to-community ties, and enhances their ability to share knowledge and tactics during an unprecedented surge in the global mining sector's demands. Such NNGOs provide a demonstrably effective corollary force to the assisting NGOs, including this case demonstration, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and could add to Indigenous community and NGOs toolkits in the face of land and resource grabs on other parts of the globe.

The Changing Terrains of Regulatory Science in Developing Countries: NGOs, Controversies and “Opening up” of Regulatory Governance
Poonam Pandey,¹ Aviram Sharma
¹Doctoral student, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University

NGOs and ‘controversies’ (scientific, social, ethical or political) are the common denominators in most of the cases which have contributed to the changing relationships between science and society over the last few decades. The “opening-up” of the regulatory science for public engagement in its various formats all over the world is generally associated to one or the other factors, sometimes to the extent of fantasizing as well as demonizing. This paper taking the example of three case studies, that are CSE (Centre for Science and Environment) report on the presence of pesticides in soft drinks and bottled water, the agribiotechnology debate and the nanotechnology situation in India, tries to understand the relationship between NGOs and controversies in (re-) defining the science-society relationship. The three cases illustrate how NGOs and controversies by their presence or absence at various stages of technology development shape the various aspects of science-society relationship such as public perception and support, funding, media coverage, regulatory structures and governance of technology.

The Cavalry versus an Electronic Militia: Comparing the IAEA and CTBTO’s Response to Fukushima
Patrick S. Roberts, Associate Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech

In the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, a small and relatively new organization, the CTBTO, went beyond its mission to monitor nuclear tests and offered information about the dispersion of radiation around the world. At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency, known by the sobriquet, “the UN’s nuclear watchdog,” drew criticism for not providing enough information in a timely fashion to governments, the media, and citizens looking for answers about the extent of the crisis and the threat posed by radiation. The divergent performance of the IAEA and CTBTO raises questions for theories of public organizations. The life cycle tradition in the sociology of organizations predicts that performance suffers in new organizations because they lack experience. Over time, their learning curves increase and they adapt to their environment and develop more efficient routines and trust with stakeholders. In this case, however, the newer CTBTO improvised efficient routines despite limited resources, and quickly developed trust among users, whereas routines and trust among stakeholders stymied the IAEA’s efforts. This case also offers evidence that the CTBTO exercised a form of bureaucratic power appropriate for a dispersed, social media world, against the wishes of states and other organizations.

Designing a “Responsible” Genetically Engineered Tree? The Role of the NGO in the Advancement of Responsible Innovation in the Biotechnology Sector
Mark Robinson,¹ Jason Delborne, Louie Rivers
¹Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and Science and Technology Studies/Ethics, DePaul University

In the variegated history of agricultural innovation, the moral morass attached to the development of engineered crops has caused both controversy as well as a scientific conundrum: given the heavy consequences of our increasing capacity to genetically engineer life, how can such innovations occur responsibly? Our project explores the role of the NGO in mediating and anticipating emerging innovations in the creation of genetically engineered trees. While there are ample commercial applications from such innovations, the genetic engineering of trees could also bring about enormous social uses: Given the capacity of genetic engineering to save valued tree species from extinction or to produce biomass more quickly and cheaply for bioenergy, how might an NGO help shape and even drive potential futures? This project explores several questions: As NGOs operate as major actors in the proposal of governance structures to support the sustainability of forest biotechnology, how do NGOs mediate the commercialization needs of corporate stakeholders and the histories of public reception to genetically engineered organisms (GEOs)? Are newer “responsible innovation” programs, such as those advocated for by NGOs, actually means through which to insulate the sector rom potential public backlash? Could responsible innovation actually be about the creation of more sustainable biotechnology sector? Located at the intersection of industry, academic bioscience, regulators and an increasingly heterogeneous public, genetic engineering is a uniquely momentous case study in considerations of the role of NGOs and the larger public in the evolution of rapidly evolving scientific and technological capabilities.

The Role of Public-Private Partnerships for Disease of Poverty Nanomedicine Research

Thomas Woodson, Assistant Professor, Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University

Nanotechnology is considered an important emerging technology and some believe it can have a big role in decreasing poverty and inequality. Through interviews and website content analysis, this paper investigates the role that public partnerships (PPP) ply in nanomedicine research. PPPs are the main actors in research for diseases of poverty (DoP) and if they are not involved with nanotechnology, then it is unlikely that nanomedicines for DoP will be developed. In this study, I find that there are both pro- and anti-nanotechnology PPPs. The pro-nanotechnology PPPs think the technology will be very important for developing new medicines while anti-nanotechnology PPPs believe that the technology is too expensive for DoP medicines and it will take too long to ring nanomedicines to the market. Instead of using nanotechnology, anti-nanotechnology PPPs are in favor of using traditional technologies to create medicines for DoP.

Effectively Communicating New Technologies to the Public Using New Media and Infographics

Yanxiang Zhang,¹ Tran Thuy Duong
¹Associate Professor, Department of Science Communication, University of Science and Technology in China

New Technologies is developing explosively, many of these technologies is not easy to be understand and get involved in, but the extend that the public knows about new technologies is essentially important for technologies democratizing, this poster will iscuss how could NGO effectively Communicating New Technologies to the Public Using New Media and Infographics.

SESSION INFORMATION for

NGO Marketplace

The following organizations will be represented at the NGO Marketplace and Reception tabling event: