“Taking Risk Communication to the Edge – new developments in risk communication between science organisations and thei

1. “Taking Risk Communication to the Edge – new developments in risk communication between science organisations and their external stakeholders” Paper presented to the NZ Society for Risk Management Conference “Talking Risk – Taking Risk” Te Papa Wellington, 5-7 November 2008 Dr. Karen Cronin Integrative Research for Sustainability Group - ESR

2. Risk acceptance and risk communication From a personal point of view, which of the following proposals would you be willing to accept? …

3. Mid day, with sunblock?

4. At the end of your street?

5. Chicken for dinner?

6. Medical treatment using pig cells or organ transplant?

7. Technology risks and communication Why are some technological risks more acceptable than others? • Different types of technologies raise different social, economic, ethical and environmental risks. • Personal and social control, familiarity, social memory, uncertainty, moral issues and trust all influence risk acceptance. • Non-technical issues are common in risk disputes but are difficult to accommodate in traditional risk assessment. • Risk communication is not only about transferring technical communication from experts to the lay public.

8. C O M M U N I C A T I O N

9. Developmental stages in risk communication:1.All we have to do is get the numbers right 2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers 3. All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers 4. All we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risks in the past5. All we have to do is show them that it’s a good deal for them 6. All we have to do is treat them nice  7. All we have to do is make them partners8. All of the above Fischoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145.

10. Source Channel Receiver→ Message → One-Way Communication Information Transfer – Deficit Model

11. One way communication techniques:Public meetings WebsitesNewslettersMedia storiesInformation sheetsEducation kitsDisplaysMulti MediaSeminars

12. Risk communication – communicating ‘the risks’to the public or communicating with stakeholders about different dimensions of risk?

13. Risk communication: Conveying or transmitting information between interested parties about – a) levels of health or environmental risks; b) the significance or meaning of health or environmental risks; or c) decisions, action or policies aimed at managing or controlling health or environmental risks. Interested parties include government agencies, corporations and interest groups, unions, the media, scientists, professional organisations, public interest groups, and individual citizens. Davies, J., Covello, V., & Allen, F. (Eds.). (1987). Risk communication. Washington DC: Conservation Foundation.

14. Two way communication Information Sharing: Engagement Model

15. Two- way communication objectives • Provide and receive information • Involve experts and others in the discussion • Increase public interest and reduce resistance • Test ideas with other people • Identify new issues, information or options • Generate alternatives / improve choice • Achieve ‘buy in’ and acceptance • Reduce cost • Improve technical outcomes • Improve social and environmental outcomes

16. Two way communication techniques:Focus groups/market researchCommunity meetings Relationships with stakeholder groupsInteractive seminars/ workshopsCommunity advisory groupNegotiation/ Agreements/ PartnershipsDialogue

17. Improving Public Engagement and Dialogue • Timing – when in the policy/ innovation/ development cycle do you engage? • Content – who can be involved and which issues are open for discussion?

18. Upstream Engagement Science Policy Science Innovation Pipeline: Downstream effects Theory Lab Applied Technology Products Market Economy Society Physical Environment

19. Moving public engagement upstream • Downstream- effects, risks • Prediction and measurement of effects • Application of controls • Upstream – consider implications earlier in the technology process • Input to selection of alternatives earlier in the policy cycle

20. Moving upstream:what questions can be asked? • Normative – what ought to be done? • Strategic – what can be done? • Operational – what will be done/how? Many public participation programmes are only used at the operational stage. This can cause frustration.

21. Example – GM dairy cattle Operational controls: Disposal of animals/milk; fences; ear tags Project: use GM markers for breeding not transgenes? Strategy: Other options to increase production, advance human medicine, opportunity costs to agriculture Normative/ moral issues: animal welfare, sacredness of life

22. Support organisational and social learning • Engage early • Strategic not just operational goals • Consider alternatives • Participatory process • Community context/ social vision

23. Use of dialogue by NZ science organisations • Ministry of Research Science and Technology • SCION • NIWA • Crop and Food/Hort and ESR

24. “Hands across the water” – developing dialogue between stakeholders in the New Zealand biotechnology debateCronin and Jackson, 2004. Victoria University of Wellington • NZ Ministry of Research Science and Technology Dialogue Programme • February 2003 - June 2004 • GM debate as a case study of science communication • Trial of 3 approaches: “Appreciative Inquiry”“The Civil Conversation”“Issues Mapping” • ‘GM Scientists’ &‘Community Interest Group’ Members Experience of communication to date?Common ground on the issues?New methods for communication in the future? http://www.morst.govt.nz/current-work/science-in-society/dialogue/fund/

25. MORST Dialogue Project Hands Across the WaterKey Findings • The debate is not as polarized as depicted by the media • Traditional stereotypes do not apply • Some aspects of GM accepted by all • Both groups place a high priority on the environment • They differ over the importance of ethical and spiritual issues • Common mistrust of ‘profit motive’ • Both scientists and environmentalists want better forms of dialogue and more information from each other and from government

26. SCION GM Pine Trees TANGATA WHENUA INVOLVEMENT 2000 Consultation with Maori was seen as an essential part of the process. SCION made a commitment to engage with the local Tangata Whenua and consult them about the field trial right from the beginning. Results are being evaluated by scientists as well as monitored by the mandated representatives from local Tangata Whenua (Ngati Hurangaterangi, Ngati Te Kahu me Ngati Taeotu o Whakaue) Literally translated means ‘understanding’ (Maramatanga) of ‘growth’ (Tipuranga). The concept applies to the trees themselves, as well as the learning for both Maori and for Forest Research scientists.

27. NIWA – National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research 2002 • Consultation between scientists and iwi over waste water treatment options/ coastal mgt. • Avoid costly involvement in hearings • Early dialogue to identify values and share perspectives • New ideas for waste water treatment drawing on traditional Maori knowledge and western scientific knowledge • Relationship building and innovation

28. Landcare Research Dialogue on: • Pest control/1080 • Biosecurity • Catchment management http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/sustainablesoc/social/CommunicationEducationandDialogue.asp

29. Match the communication method to the nature of the risk One way communication: Technical risk discourse Consensus on end use/social purpose Low ethical/moral risk dimension Technology proposal and its impacts well understood Two way communication: Values based risk discourse Lack of consensus on social purpose Significant ethical/moral consequences Impacts of technology uncertain Knowledge field rapidly evolving

30. PeterSandman - 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.

31. Changing science projects, and organisational behaviour • Early research transgenic plants (GM potatoes, brassica ) - production of pharmaceuticals, avoiding disease contamination problems. • Recent research: - methods to prevent seed and pollen transmission of transgenes and control the plant component in which they are active, for example, root or leaf. - ecological impact of plants produced using gene technologies. - transfer genes between related species without using unrelated bacterial DNA as a vector • Future research: - anticipating public responses to new technologies, eg. nano/food to support strategic decision making before research agenda is set Dr Tony Connor Crop & Food Research Ltd. Christchurch, New Zealand.

32. Crop and Food Research and ESRFRST Funded Project 2008-12Coming to the Table – 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

33. “ You have to do science responsibly. It cannot be done in isolation; it is done in a community context.” #44 scientist“We have a public that we’re accountable to and that makes us responsible in science. … We are also all responsible to ourselves and to society. Society does shape all of us. If we’re not aware of that, we’re living on an island!” #59 scientist

34. Contact Details: Dr. Karen Cronin Science Leader (Science, Technology and Society)Integrative Research for Sustainability Group Environmental and Scientific Research Ltd ESR karen.cronin@esr.cri.nz