Participants at the Workshop

Left click on me!

POST-WORKSHOP REPORT (January 2009)

Workshop Report

Karen Cronin, Richard Hindmarsh and Rosemary du Plessis (organisers)

This workshop aimed to bring together researchers involved in science, technology and society studies for critical discussion on current themes in the field and to advance STS research and practice in the Asia-Pacific region. It was initiated to promote networking across countries, disciplines, institutions and professional groups, and foster new connections, including links with the recently established journal East Asian Science, Technology and Society.

This meeting gave STS scholars an opportunity to learn more about each other’s work, approaches and experiences in the field of STS, and to consider options for future collaboration.

Keynote speaker
Professor Frank Fischer was the as keynote speaker. Frank Fischer is distinguished Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Rutgers University (USA). He is currently completing a book on Deliberative Democracy and Policy Expertise (Oxford University Press, 2008) and will be in Australasia in November and early December.

Workshop
This event was very successful, with 45 participants from China, Japan, Singapore, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, and top quality presentations. A total of 24 papers were presented (including keynote and plenary talks), representing a wide range of STS perspectives and research approaches. The workshop provided us with a great opportunity to discuss ideas, hear about others’ research, and to establish relationships for future STS networking and collaboration in the region.

Several concrete outcomes resulted, including:

(1) A special journal issue of selected papers from the workshop is being pursued by the workshop organisers, in the first instance through the newly established East Asian Science Technology and Society Journal. See: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/social+sciences,+general/journal/12280

A call for papers will be set in motion in March 2009, following the themes from the workshop, with the aim of publication in late 2010.

(2) a regional STS Network is to be set up, with a convening group. A/Prof Richard Hindmarsh (Griffith University, Brisbane) was invited by workshop participants to be the inaugural Convenor (for 2009), with advisors Dr Karen Cronin and Virginia Baker (ESR, Wellington), and support contacts in China (Dr Ma Huiduan), Japan (A/Prof. Tomiko Yamaguchi), and Singapore (Dr Sulfikar Amir).

However, as A/Prof Hindmarsh is also the organiser for the next STS workshop in Brisbane in November 2009, he has passed on the role of Convenor to Karen Cronin but remains on the committee as Deputy Convenor. Karen’s employer (Environmental Science and Research Ltd) is extending its capability in the STS field and has kindly agreed to provide support for the Network e.g. through hosting web pages, contact database.

Format for the Network

Rather than creating another professional association, it is envisaged that the Network will be an informal group, aimed at developing collegial relationships in the Asia Pacific region. It would operate primarily though an annual workshop, along with an email contact list and a website. There will be no formal membership, committee structure, or fees. The annual workshop will be self funding through registrations, grants and sponsorship. To share the workload, the Convenor role will be rotated on an annual basis [to December]. The Convenor will co-opt support from among the Network members, including appointing an organising group for the annual workshop.

The Network will be open to those with an interest in STS research, theory and practice in the Asia Pacific region, and it will be complementary to existing formal associations. Many network participants already belong to established national or international STS/HPS associations. The Wellington meeting agreed to investigate the options for a complementary support relationship with a potential regional chapter of 4S, but upon investigation this option is not available.

(3) The next networking event is a conference in Brisbane, 23-25 November 2009, with Richard Hindmarsh as the organiser. The Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University, of which Richard is a member, is kindly providing primary funding support. Special features of the Brisbane meeting will be a focus on environmental and on indigenous issues. Other streams will likely include biomedicine and society, governance and citizenship, and current STS research in the region, including methodological innovations and networking for collaboration.


(4) Other future events/developments:

(a) Network members are also looking forward to meeting again in August 2010 in Japan, at the 4S annual meeting in Tokyo. See details at: http://www.4sonline.org/future_mtgs.htm. This will be an opportunity to extend our contacts in the Asia Pacific region and potentially present joint papers or sessions.

(b) the Wellington meeting was honoured to have the participation of Professor Chen Fan, Chief Professor at the Innovation Institute of Philosophy and Social Science for STS Northeastern University, China and President of the Chinese STS Society, along with his colleague Dr Ma Huiduan. Prof Fan kindly offered to host a future regional STS networking meeting in China in 2011 or 2012.

(c) The full workshop presentations and future information for STS networking will be set up soon on a permanent web page, hosted by Environmental Science and Research (ESR) on its STS pages. Visit this URL:
http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/socialscienceandsystemsthinking/Pages/ScienceTechnologyandSociety.aspx

The organisers would like to thank once again all our speakers, and in particular our sponsors: Environmental Science and Research (ESR), the Victoria Management School at Victoria University of Wellington, the Building Research Capacity in the Social Sciences Fund (BRCSS) in New Zealand, and the Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University in Brisbane.

Contents: scrolling down

Programme
Keynote and plenary speakers
List of Abstracts

Final Programme

Please click on the programme Day 1 (left) and then Day 2 (right) to blow them up to puruse or to print

Keynote Speaker: Professor Frank Fischer

Frank Fischer is distinguished Professor of Political Science and Global Affairs and member of EJ Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University (USA). He received the Harold Lasswell Award of the Policy Studies Organization, for "outstanding scholars for contributions to the understanding of the substance and process of public policy". Books include: Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise (1990), Evaluating Public Policy (1995), Living with Nature: Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse (1999), Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge (2000), and Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices (2003). Democracy and Expertise will appear in February of 2009 (OUP).

The keynote presentation is titled:

Scientific Expertise and Citizen Participation: Situating Technical Knowledge in Public Deliberation

This presentation examines the tensions between citizens and experts in the assessment of controversial policy issues. Much of the discussion of this topic has focused on the “irrationality” of the citizen, particular the citizen’s inability to understand or accept expert findings and its implications for rational policymaking. Through a comparison of the formal logic of science and the informal ordinary language logic of argumentation, this analysis turns the issue around and questions the rationality of the scientific expert in decisions pertaining to public policy. In the process, the presentation will show that ordinary citizens rationally focus on important questions that scientific experts ignore or neglect. Epistemologically demonstrating the scientist’s need to integrate the citizen’s perspective, the paper concludes with an approach for bringing them together.

Plenary Speaker: Aotearoa New Zealand

Dr Karen Cronin has a background in social research, environmental management, and risk communication. Her doctoral research was a critical review of the use of dialogue methods for resolving technology conflicts. Earlier this year she was appointed as Science Leader in the social science team at Environmental Research and Science (NZ), focusing on STS research. Her recent work has examined the use of deliberative dialogue methods for biotechnology governance, developments in sustainability science and trans-disciplinary research. Karen is now leading a 4-year FRST funded project on the use of upstream engagement methods around the development of future food technologies, working with scientists, industry, government and community stakeholders.

Presentation: Overview of STS activities in Aotearoa NZ

A brief overview of the story of STS in NZ including teaching/research, events, policy initiatives, and commentary on what aspects have been developed in NZ so far and where future work might be.

Plenary Speaker: Australia

Dr Stephen Healy
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Stephen Healy is Senior Lecturer in the School of History and Philosophy and Coordinator of the Environmental Studies and HPS Programs of the Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS). He is also Research Coordinator (FASS) of the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets. He has worked for Greenpeace International, the NSW EPA and Middlesex University (UK) where he led the Science, Technology and Society Program. Research interests include the role of S&T in contemporary environmental problems; issues of global environmental change, particularly climate change; energy issues/politics; risk and uncertainty; public participation; theoretical approaches to socio-materiality; & transdisciplinarity across the social/natural sciences and engineering.

Presentation: Overview of STS activities in Australia

While very much smaller than the traditional leading STS communities of the USA and Europe, Australian developments have been as diverse in terms of activities, institutional structures and areas of interest since the 1960s. This continues today with STS practiced across a wide range of academic and other research settings.

Plenary Speaker: Asia

Assoc. Professor Tomiko Yamaguchi
International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan

Tomiko Yamaguchi teaches the sociology's of S&T and international development. Her research focuses on the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced and reproduced through the politics of stakeholders, and has worked on GMO controversies in India. Currently, a research project looks at mass media reporting and GMOs, which is funded by Japan’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council. Another looks at public understanding of food safety issues concerning food nanotechnology. Tomiko's plenary talk will overview current themes and critical discussions of Japanese STS scholars against the backgrop of Asian STS developments.

Presentation: Wider STS developments in Asia with a special focus on Japan

An overview of the fast-growing STS communities in Asia, especially with some data readily available about Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, including various policy, teaching and research developments, activities and initiatives, which also indicate a diverse socio-economic background and historical context, with differing emphasis on the fields (topics) of STS scholarship. Similarities and differences of Asian STS scholars are signalled against the topics addressed by Japanese STS scholars.

LIST OF ABSTRACTS

A values-based framework for effective interactions between scientists and Māori
Philip Wilcox,(1) Julia Charity,(1) Mere Roberts,(2,3) Stephen Tauwhare,(2,4) Bevan Tipene-Matua,(2,5) I. Kereama-Royal,(2,6) R. Hunter,(2,7) H. Kani,(8) and P. Moke-Delaney(2,9)
1Scion, Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park, Rotorua, NZ
2Te Aroturuki – a Māori advisory group for Scion
3 Auckland University of Technology, NZ
4 Industrial Research Ltd, Lower Hutt, Wellington, NZ: S.Tauwhare@irl.cri.nz
5 Present Address: RD3, Porongahau, Hawkes Bay, NZ
6Pakihi Partners Limited, Wellington, NZ
7 Marlborough Research Centre, Blenheim, NZ
8Present Address: 74 Barraud Street, Dannevirke, NZ
9School of Business Management, University Of Waikato, NZ

Cross-cultural dialogue is an essential part of evaluation of controversial technologies and research proposals that have significance for Māori (the indigenous people of New Zealand). As we look to the future, it is important that if Māori are to benefit from such technologies that processes are defined to assure positive outcomes. An advisory group ‘Te Aroturuki’ was established to advise, monitor and interact with Scion scientists working on genetic modification. Recently we have developed a process for interactions between scientists and Māori. The process aims to improve cross-cultural dialogue by providing both the tools and a step-by-step process for scientists working on controversial and/or new technologies to: (a) develop long-term relationship with Māori entities; (b) learn how to take into account Māori values; and (c) be proactive about delivering tangible benefits to Māori from such technologies. The process recognises non-Māori scientists are often willing to participate in effective dialogue with Māori but feel apprehensive because of unfamiliarity with the language (Te Reo), protocols (kawa) and values (tikanga). The process advocates use of a Māori ‘culture broker’ to assist scientists prior to and during the engagement process. We are currently developing web-based information resources that will available to both scientists and Māori communities.

Sustainable collaborative research
Mary Allan
Social Science Research Centre, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: mary.allan@canterbury.ac.nz

This project investigates ways of implementing sustainable research practices enabling flourishing international research while minimising travel generated carbon emissions. This notion has often been addressed through an engineering approach proposing teleconferencing tools that enable remote interactions, hence reducing the need to travel. However, rigorous technological enhancements have not resulted in the anticipated wide uptake. The dyadic model of addressing a problem by providing a mechanical solution has not delivered the desirable outcomes and alternative approaches are needed. Using Snow’s terminology, the project proposes that we need a change in discourse replacing the dyadic problem > solution ‘engineering discourse’ with a ‘humanistic discourse’, which introduces a model of problem understanding and choice. Technology is only a part of the solution. Human choices driven by values, ethics and operating in political and economic contexts play an important part in implementing sustainable research practices. To understand why teleconferencing is not widely adopted by researchers, we need to investigate whole systems of variables affecting the choices researchers make, and the practices these choices generate. Previous work I have done in the area looked through Social Constructivist and Bourdieuean lenses, and enabled to view technology not as an autonomous, but rather a complex enterprise that takes place in specific contexts shaped by and in turn shaping human values. The variety and interdependency of the contexts at play in this project suggest the need for General Systems Theory to find how, and which interdependencies will potentially generate a context conducive to sustainable collaborative research.

The GM debate, social responsibility and the New Zealand press
Doug Ashwell
Massey University, New Zealand: D.Ashwell@massey.ac.nz

The discovery of genetically modified (GM) food or food containing GM ingredients in New Zealand supermarkets in 1998 saw the beginning of a highly politicised debate about GM use in New Zealand. The concern over this issue and the particular political situation after the 1999 general election saw the Government establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification in May 2000. The Royal Commission and the debate over GM were highly newsworthy topics, resulting in a great deal of news coverage. This study presents a quantitative analysis of the reportage by six New Zealand newspapers between 1998 and February 2002, examining patterns of news source use, the themes reported, while also illustrating the stance taken on the various themes and GM as awhole. These results are explained and supported by data from interviews conducted with scientists and journalists involved in the reporting of the GM debate. The reportage throughout the period examined is characterised by the prevalence of scientists, industry spokespeople and policy makers as news sources, while other source types were marginalised. The themes of the reportage concentrate on economics, science and politics while marginalizing issues of health, environment and ethics. These results are consistent with earlier studies in the U.S. and Europe. However, one economic sub‐theme, Consumer choice, regarding the labeling of GM food was a departure from these previous patterns. Overall the coverage is positive towards GM and the potential economic benefits it may bring. The results raise questions regarding the media’s adherence to the normative theory of social responsibility, especially in regard to presenting a diversity of viewpoints.

Thinking about some problems in current STS education
Chen Fan and Ma Huiduan
Research Center for Science, Technology and Society, School of Humanities and Law, Northeastern University, Shenyang, P.R. China: mahdusa@yahoo.com

The paper makes clear the formation and development of STS studies in China at first, its study route and nature definition in China, also its study content. After that, we turn to the study of STS education in China; it is one of the most important aspect in China’s STS study. We point out the importance and necessity of STS education in China from perspectives reflecting both theory and reality, and then address the general purpose of STS education in China, the content of it, and also the levels of it. After that, we analyze the problems and contradiction in STS education. That is, the problem about the standardization of the purpose of STS education, the problem about the orientation of the purpose of STS education; the problem about the content of STS education and the setting of course, the feasibility of the setting of course, the formation of epistemological background for STS education. For the exploration of the levels of STS education, we pay attention to the understanding and acceptance ability for knowledge in STS Education. We think that, the clear defining about the above problem is the precondition for reasonable STS education.

Channel automation technology: emergent trajectories and social perspectives
Brent Collett and Ruth Nettle
Rural Innovation Research Group, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, Australia: b.collett@pgrad.unimel.edu.au

There is increased interest from policy makers and water resource managers in the role of irrigation system technologies (i.e. channel automation) in improving the efficiency of irrigation water‐use in Australia’s stressed water systems and the potential of such technologies to contribute to water savings for environmental purposes (Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Draft Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy, October 2008). However, there has been limited analysis of such technological strategies from a social and organisational perspective. This paper reports on research into the evolution of channel automation technology in Victoria, Australia, and in particular, the way farmers and water managers adapt and negotiate their way through the unintended consequences of technological strategies. Qualitative data from interviews with irrigation farmers, and participation and interactions with Water Service Committees, and water resource managers has been analysed using a Grounded Theory methodology. Results indicate the emergence of different trajectories for individual farmers from adapting their farm management, farm resources, and production systems in trying to “make channel automation work”. The emerging trajectories have implications for how the objectives for which the technology was conceived are achieved but also the technology management challenge in negotiating the outcomes of diverse trajectories. Although there are no surprises that the fate of technological strategies is reliant on people, this research raises questions about how social theories and studies of technology might better inform technology management in real time.

“Guess who’s coming to dinner!” bringing stakeholders to the table for early engagement around future food technologies
Karen Cronin
Integrative Research for Sustainability Group, Environmental Science and Research (ESR)
Wellington, New Zealand, karen.cronin@esr.cri.nz

Across the STS literature there has been a growing emphasis on the need for improved public engagement to allow greater societal input into science and technology decision‐making. Traditional engagement mechanisms, such as submissions, hearings and other forms of consultation, are seen to have fallen short of public expectations for influence on project decisions, often reducing rather then enhancing public trust in policy and regulatory agencies. Recent calls for moving public engagement ‘upstream’ have emphasised the need for input at an early stage before commitments are made ‐ rather than involving stakeholders only after the issues and downstream impacts become visible. The discourse around ‘upstream engagement’ carries expectations around both the timing of public input and the ability to contribute to the strategic content and direction of science and technology policy. Scientists in New Zealand have become increasingly aware of the risk aversion and conflict that can be generated by controversial technologies such as genetic engineering, and the need to design products that will be acceptable to consumers in key markets. This paper describes a new research project, managed by social and biophysical scientists, which seeks to apply upstream engagement practice in the context of emerging future food technologies. Focused on biotechnology, nanotechnology and nutrigenomics, the project will use dialogue methods to engage food scientists, industry, government, and community, environmental and Maori stakeholders. The aim is to create a new discursive space for considering future food applications and to transfer insights from the research into strategic planning by scientists, industry and government.

Towards 'Social Scientific Citizenship'
Rosemary Du Plessis,* Richard Hindmarsh** and Karen Cronin***
* School of Sociology and Anthropology, Univ. of Canterbury, NZ: rosemary.duplessis@canterbury.ac.nz
** Griffith School of Environment and Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Australia:
*** Integrated Systems for Sustainability group, ESR, Porirua, New Zealand

The concept of the ‘scientific citizen’ – both informed by and informing future trajectories in modern science and technology ‐ is now attracting increasing attention in the STS field. In this paper, we discuss the construction of scientific citizenship from the point of view of social scientists actively involved in research to document and stimulate engagement between scientists, science agencies and civil society. We suggest that through our participation as researchers in science and society relations we also construct ourselves as ‘social science citizens’ – facilitating communication between ‘science and society’ stakeholders and at the same acting as citizens in the creation of contemporary discourses of science and technology governance. This paper outlines our experience in the tension‐laden boundary between science innovation, policy processes and public engagement. We reflect on our recent investigative work, which has drawn on a variety of research strategies, including interactions with scientists and policy advisors, as well as dialogic interventions with scientists and community activists, deliberative forums, online discussions. Our observations are informed by in‐depth textual analysis of policy documents, work in agencies set up to regulate the importation and use of genetically modified organisms, membership of new institutional forms established to 'engage' the public in discussion of biotechnologies as well as contract work by STS scholars for science policy agencies. We consider the opportunities and challenges facing social scientists who are involved in collaborative relationships with scientists, state actors and multiple publics.

If it’s just ‘Talk’ why don’t we just do Politics?
Stephen Healy
School of History and Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia: s.healy@unsw.edu.au

Although it’s now bordering on accepted wisdom that many activities aimed at enhancing the democratic credentials of technoscientific decision‐making amount to little more than ‘talk’ public participation remains a
growth industry. While this is certainly productive in the sense of generating further ‘talk’, with ‘upstream engagement’ a notable recent example, the prognosis remains poor (e.g. Joly & Kaufmann, 2008). This is despite some substantive conceptual signposts as to where we might be getting it wrong. Marres (2007), for example, argues that ‘the issues deserve more attention’; de Vries (2007) that we might fruitfully learn from Aristotle (in thesense that we should concentrate on the object of politics rather than it’s subjects); while Latour (2007), in his response to de Vries, consigns deliberative politics to the status of one, of five, ‘stages in the natural history of issues’, each of which is associated with a different conception of politics. This paper will discuss these developments and their implications for future STS work on governance and policy.

Deliberative Speak at the turbine face: community engagement and wind farms in Australia
Richard Hindmarsh and Catherine Matthews
Griffith University School of Environment and, Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Australia: r.hindmarsh@griffith.edu.au

In late 2007, a new Australian federal government committed to significantly boosting Australia’s energy consumption from renewable energy by 2020. With wind farms the most viable technology for such expansion, however, no recognition was paid to wind farm development as a co‐produced socio‐technical system, with a key problem being lack of local inclusion in state government approval processes, reflected by intense social conflict in communities where wind farms are located/planned. To redress that democratic deficit, in 2006, the prior federal government proposed a participatory National Code for Wind Farms. State governments rejected the proposal as a constraint to wind power and claimed adequate community engagement. Here, although we find in favour of the federal government’s position, we find the National Code heavily featuring ‘deliberative speak’ that suggests placation of communities instead of consensus building. That informs tentative suggestions of how to better engender a more democratically legitimate governance approach for affected communities and renewable energy transitions in Australia.

The New Zealand public’s response to insect‐pest eradication technologies
Joanna Gamble* and Tracy Payne**
* The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd: JGamble@hortresearch.co.nz
** AgResearch Ltd, New Zealand

The use of aerial spraying to eradicate insect pests has met with mixed responses depending on the situation in
which it was used. A key criticism in situations where response has been negative is the lack of genuine two‐way communication between the community and the agencies responsible for the eradication of the insect pest. The Better Border Biosecurity Programme in New Zealand requires that opinions of relevant stakeholders be included as part of the development and use of alternative pest eradication technologies. A research project has therefore been established to examine the response of the New Zealand public to several insect‐pest eradication technologies. In the first stage of the research, qualitative interviewing techniques examined response of selected community stakeholders to three eradication technologies that had either been used in New Zealand recently, or were proposed for future use: aerial spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk), aerial spraying of pheromones and Sterile Insect Technology (SIT). Results indicated that in‐depth information (such as potential long‐term effects on health and environment), how it was presented, and how the community was included in the decision‐making process were likely to be the significant influences in predicting public response to eradication attempts in the future. In the second stage of the research, we are considering using a revision of Fishbein’s Multiattribute Attitude model (which includes beliefs about risks and benefits, perceptions of personal control, knowledge of the technologies and general attitudes) to provide an indication of the relative importance of these issues in determining the acceptability of each technique among a much broader sample of the NZ population.

QCA and ANT: complementing qualitative comparative analysis using actor network theory
Simon J. Lambert
Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand: simon.lambert@lincoln.ac.nz

The return of indigenous land to a productive role in the so‐called Knowledge Economy entails the innovation and diffusion of technologies relevant to the sustainable development of this land and the broader socio‐ecological resilience of indigenous communities. Such innovation is emerging in tandem with concerns for cultural diversity as political‐economic strategies in the Knowledge Economy converge within a global economic space. Indigenous development is often framed in terms of participation, whereby indigenous communities are enticed, assisted or just forced to participate in various ascriptions of modernity. The research tools available in examining this phenomenon have struggled to adequately unpack the degree of participation, its particular form, and the subsequent effects upon development, however that development is defined. This paper demonstrates Fuzzyset/Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) in articulating the causal conditions of sustainable development for Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand and shows how Actor‐Network Theory (ANT) can contribute to understanding the various participations involved in such development. fsQCA is an approach that enables the rigorous investigation of small‐N studies (common to collaborative approaches used by researchers when working ethically with marginalised groups) and identifies necessary and sufficient conditions towards goals supported by indigenous collectives. ANT was effective in extending the analysis and provided greater insight into the settheoretic approach of fsQCA.

The moral responsibilities of science in society: a qualitative investigation of scientists’ attitudes
Bruce Small
AgResearch Ltd, NZ: bruce.small@agresearch.co.nz

Technology provides many morally good outcomes for humans; improved health, life expectancy, living standards, and magnificent civilisations. However, as a result of our use of technology, society also faces negative moral outcomes associated with global environmental and social crises. These include: global warming, species extinction, resource depletion, pollution, wealth/resource inequity, and weapons of mass destruction. Science and technology are causal antecedent of these human induced crises. This raises the question: what are the moral responsibilities to society of science and the scientists who discover knowledge and develop new technologies? To investigate scientists’ attitudes to this question unstructured interviews were conducted with New Zealand scientists (n=22) working in fields related to gene technology. The data corpus was analysed using the method of thematic analyses as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). Two main themes of scientific moral social responsibility were developed: ‘doing good though science’ (Doing Good) and ‘engagement with the public about science’ (Engagement). Doing Good describes participants’ beliefs about the social responsibilities of science and scientists to ‘do good’. Participants expressed a range of attitudes: “science has a responsibility to do no harm”, there is no imperative for science and scientists to do good”, “science should be done for the public good”, and “science should try to balance benefits and harms”). Sub‐themes analysed under Doing Good were: Knowledge, Technology, Foresighting, and Compliance. Engagement describes participants’ beliefs about scientists’ and the science community’s responsibility to engage with society. The sub‐themes analysed under Engagement were: Informing Society and Becoming Informed.

So you can turn water into fuel? science and the politics of hoax
Sulfikar Amir
Division of Sociology,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: SULFIKAR@ntu.edu.sg

Though it is often seen as the bearer of ultimate truth, the history of science is plagued by a list of scientific claims that turned out to be hoaxes. For many of us, hoax is perceivably an action of lying or uttering a statement with ungrounded facts. Because of its ubiquity and repeated use by those pursuing a set of covert or overt goals, one is inclined to take hoax for granted, a position drawn from associating hoax to a form of dishonesty and fraudulence like the story of a boy who lies to his village a fox is coming to eat him. Hoax appears in almost every social sphere we encounter in our daily life. From celebrity gossips to high politics, from dubious issues to life threatening crises, the presence of hoax marks our communicative interactions accelerated by ever-growing media industry. In the field of science, the practice of hoax can penetrate deeply into scientific production as shown in several shocking cases, most recently in the South Korean stem-cell hoax. While hoax has been treated simply as an untrue statement or claim, this article seeks to take hoax seriously by looking into its political effects to the science-public relations. Situated in the blue energy hoax that recently shook up Indonesian politics, this paper is focused around peculiar political conditions that have allowed the hoax to enter into high-level decision-making process implicating elite actors, the media, and scientific institutions in Indonesia. What this paper attempts to pursue is to show that a hoax has succeeded to encroach on scientific territory through a process parallel to how science gets its way within social realms as explained in STS theories. Thus, this paper observes the practice of hoax using three canonical approaches in STS, namely the politics of artifact, actor-network, and technology of performance.

Meanings of forensic DNA evidence in New Zealand
Johanna Veth,* Victoria Grace,** Gerald Midgley and A Ahuriri‐Driscoll
* ESR and University of Canterbury, New Zealand: jo.veth@esr.cri.nz
** University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ
*** ESR Christchurch, NZ

The popularity of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, and similar TV programmes points to a public fascination with forensic science, in particular forensic DNA technology. Given the role of the public in the criminal justice process, understandings of this technology are crucial to its social application. If differences in understandings can be shown, then there are potential implications for how evidence is presented and examined in court, and for increased professional‐public dialogue. The overarching aim of the research is to investigate the extent and nature of the gap between ‘lay’ and ‘professional’ understandings of how DNA technology is used and its role in the formation of evidence, focusing in particular on the different meanings that stakeholders attribute to DNA evidence and their consequences for criminal justice. This Marsden‐funded research is very much still a work in progress. Semi‐structured interviews exploring the understandings of forensic DNA technologies held by various criminal justice professionals are underway. These professionals represent a wide range of roles including police officers, forensic scientists, lawyers, and medico‐legal doctors. Lay understandings will be gathered from Māori, Pākehā and new settler communities through the use of scenarios in a focus group setting.

A common sense methodology for STS studies
Amanda Wolf
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand: amanda.wolf@vuw.ac.nz

STS studies share two notable attributes. First, STS studies focus on the interface of some phenomenon in both its scientific/technological guise and in its social patterns of resistance, change or acceptance. Second, at that interface angels and devils cavort: all hell breaks loose, even as heavenly heights are achieved. Today’s food system is a case in point, delivering nutrition and taste effectively and efficiently, but also implicated in matters such as the ‘childhood obesity epidemic’, the subjugation of agricultural workers, and maladaption in the face of predicted climate change. This paper introduces and illustrates Q methodology as an approach that can contribute understanding at the crucial interface where behaviour happens. Q methodology allows the subjectivity at the interface into consideration because it provides a way to measure it and make it available for further interpretation, policy and action. An exploratory study is presented, in the context of social marketing directed athealthy eating in the context of New Zealand’s “Feeding our Futures” campaign, which targets 8‐ to 12‐year‐olds. The findings draw attention to the implications for policy of the common sense at the STS interface. Common sense arises from experiences, beliefs and shared cultural traditions. It is specific and practical, but ephemeral and, hence, largely outside typical decision‐making practices. Q methodology can bring it back in, with positive implications for improved policy.

Reporting the facts or creating controversies?
Tomiko Yamaguchi
International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan: tyamaguc@icu.ac.jp

How does the mass media communicate essentials of a controversy that involves scientific knowledge concerning the safety of food? The frequent claims that “we simply report the facts” raise the question: Does the mass media simply report facts by essentially serving as a conduit to relay a scientific discussion to the public? or, Does the mass media fail to report scientific discussions accurately – a criticism frequently levelled by scientists? If the latter, why is this so? Underlying these questions is the more fundamental question of whether the problems in media coverage of food safety – assuming for the moment that there are problems – can be attributed to a deficit in scientific knowledge and communication of scientific facts. The “scientific deficit” model implies that better dissemination of scientific information by experts and greater understanding of scientific knowledge could change the media coverage of food safety by those working in the mass media. In theory, increased scientific understanding would help avoid the creation of unnecessary confusion about food safety controversies; however, in reality, various social forces make the news content rather partial or inaccurate as claimed by scientists even though the reporters themselves are making efforts to fully cover the facts and write accurate stories by citing relevant scientific studies or comments by experts. This study addresses the question of how the mass media interprets, characterizes and communicates complex scientific knowledge concerning food safety and why. The study particularly sheds light on the ways in which the Japanese mass media has dealt with news related to food safety controversies related to genetically modified food (GM food). My presentation reports the analysis of interviews with Japanese journalists, news reporters and TV producers, who have experience working with issues related to science, agriculture and food.

Science Talk: what the public want
Judy Motion
Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia: jmotion@uow.edu.au

A meta‐analysis of the changing science –society discourses that played out in New Zealand after the lifting of a moratorium on applications for the release of genetically modified organisms is provided in this presentation. It highlights the tension between the scientific focus on knowledge and the societal focus on ontological values, beliefs and emotions. A key contribution of the article is identification of the role of altruistic discourses in societal considerations of controversial scientific innovations. IT is argued that science communication needs to shift from explanations of how science works to what science means, why science is important and the implications for individuals, their family and friends and society more generally. The need for a democratised discursive space for societal engagement with science is highlighted.

‘STS impact assessment’: reflections on the impact of STS expertise in legal and regulatory settings involving controversial science
David Mercer
STS, University of Wollongong, Australia: dmercer@uow.edu.au

The following discussion will provide a reflective overview of some of the factors involved in assessing the impact of STS scholarship (expertise) in controversial legal and regulatory settings. Four case studies are used: my personal experience as a member of a committee which provides advice to Australian science policy makers in relation to health issues associated with mobile telephones; the impact of recent STS citations in the US legal system; the reception by US courts of STS expertise in litigation involving fingerprint evidence and the reception of STS expertise in 'Creation Science ' litigation. In the first case study STS perspectives were available but ignored, in the second, cited, then marginalised, the third, openly resisted and in the fourth re‐appropriated. Four factors are considered as explanations for these patterns of resistance and re‐appropriation.

The WaiVotua Project – Linking water and health in Votua, Fiji
Ann Winstanley,1 Miria Lange,1 Rebecca Stott,2 Chris Tanner,2 Tom Headley,2* Andrew Dakers,3 Bill Aalbersberg,4 Patrick Fong,4 Victor Bonito,5 and Viliame Jeke6

1 Environmental Science and Research (ESR), Christchurch, New Zealand: Ann.Winstanley@esr.cri.nz
2 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Hamilton, NZ (* now at UFZ Leipzig, Germany)
3 EcoEng Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand
4 Institute of Applied Science , University of South Pacific, Suva, Fiji
5 Reef Explorer, Korolevu, Coral Coast, Fiji
6 Korolevu, Coral Coast, Fiji

The WaiVotua collaborative project is developing sustainable community water supply and wastewater treatment solutions for coastal Fijian villages to protect human and environmental health, and is funded by NZAid. This project brings together a large team that includes biophysical science, engineering, social science and indigenous village knowledge and experience. This presentation focuses on the process of developing a new approach to a Health Impact Assessment relevant to both the project focus and the village context. The HIA, then, is informed by other activities (identified in the project brief) that include capacity building in Votua and an evaluation of how the members of the team work together as well as the effectiveness of their interactions with the village. Involvement in this project has been—and still is—a challenging journey; carrying out defined roles within a multidisciplinary project, but continuing to take a position of non-expert. The presentation will outline this journey to date, raising a number of issues for discussion about how to deal with differences and complementarities, in the context of added responsibility for translating this learning and experience in ways that are relevant to a wider audience of researchers and practitioners.

Reflecting on boundary dynamics in a case study setting: Insights from systemic intervention & STS
Virginia Baker and Wendy Gregory
Institute for Environmental Science & Research Ltd (ESR), New Zealand: Virginia.Baker@esr.cri.nz

This presentation describes a science intervention in an environmental health issue where residents adjoining a chemical plant were concerned about suspected exposure to dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The issue was characterised by long-standing controversy between government, science, and community. A social science approach was utilised to facilitate engagement with the affected community and multiple stakeholders, and to design a multi-disciplinary science investigation. Two theoretical approaches are utilised to better understand the dynamics of conflict, and the points of integration that were achieved in this setting. These are the concept of ‘boundary critique’ from systems thinking, and a ‘boundary arrangements’ typology from STS.