Subject: TOWN MEETINGS ON TECHNOLOGY (Loka Alert 3:4) Loka Alert 3:4 (June 7, 1996) "TOWN MEETINGS ON TECHNOLOGY" (from _Technology Review_) Friends and Colleagues: This is one in an occasional series of electronic postings on democratic politics of science and technology, issued by the Loka Institute. You are welcome to repost it in its entirety; however commercial republication requires prior written permission. If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute's e-mail list, please send a message to: . If you enjoy Loka Alerts, please invite your friends and colleagues to subscribe too. Thanks! --Dick Sclove Executive Director, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004 USA Tel. (413) 253-2828; Fax (413) 253-4942 E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu World Wide Web http://www.amherst.edu/~loka ***************************************************************** CONTENTS (1) "Town Meetings on Technology" by Dick Sclove (from _Technology Review_)........................ (4-1/2 pages) (2) About the Loka Institute (including Internships and Updates).................................... (3 pages) ***************************************************************** (1) TOWN MEETINGS ON TECHNOLOGY by Dick Sclove A previous Loka Alert (1:12, Nov. 1994) described the "consensus conference" process for citizen-based technology policy deliberations, pioneered by the Danish Parliament's Board of Technology: A panel of everyday lay citizens spends two weekends discussing background materials about a controversial, complex technological issue (e.g., biotechnology or telecommunications policy) that is pending before Parliament. These are genuine lay panels--that is, no experts, no representatives of organized interest groups. The Board of Technology then organizes a four-day public forum in the Parliament building: Day 1: Experts and interest groups (including public interest groups) testify before the lay panel. Day 2: Lay panel cross examines the experts and interest groups. Day 3: Lay panel deliberates privately and writes their own report summarizing their judgments on the issue. Day 4: Lay panel reads their report at a national press conference and answers questions from the media, interested members of Parliament, and anyone else in in attendance. It is a lovely process that has stimulated broad popular discussions, influenced Parliamentary decisions, etc. I've just published a more fleshed out description of it as the lead-off article in the July issue of _Technology Review_ (published by MIT): Richard E. Sclove, "Town Meetings on Technology," _Technology Review_, vol. 99, no. 5 (July 1996), pp. 24-31. You can read the entire article by visiting the "Loka Publications" section of the Loka Institute homepage (http://www.amherst.edu/~loka), or we will gladly e-mail you a copy upon request: Loka@amherst.edu The article is a bit too long to distribute here as a Loka Alert. Instead, I include below a 2-1/2 page excerpt that compares several reports written by Danish lay panels with those written by experts working under the auspices of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (Note: The OTA was abolished in Sept. 1995 by the U.S. Congress. Although I had been critical of OTA's weakness in exploring participatory technology assessment methodologies, I and Loka colleagues strongly opposed its abolition.) This excerpt includes some text omitted, in the interest of brevity, from the published _Technology Review_ version. THE LOKA INSTITUTE IS CURRENTLY ASSEMBLING INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS AND SEEKING FUNDS TO TRY TO ORGANIZE A PILOT CONSENSUS CONFERENCE IN THE U.S. If your institution might like to be involved in organizing this or future consensus conferences, let us know (e-mail Loka@amherst.edu), and we will keep an eye out for possible constructive alliances or opportunities. IF YOU HAVE LEADS ON FUNDRAISING TO SUPPORT SUCH AN EVENT, PLEASE DON'T BE SHY; LET US KNOW! Thanks! --Dick Sclove, The Loka Institute * * * Expanded excerpt from "Town Meetings on Technology": Lay panel reports from a consensus conference are typically 15 to 30 pages long, clearly reasoned, and nuanced in judgment. The report from the 1992 Danish conference on genetically engineered animals is a case in point, showing a perspective that is neither pro- nor anti-technology in any general sense. The lay panelists expressed ethical opposition to issuing patents on animal life, fearing that it would deepen the risk of animals being treated purely as objects. Members also feared that objectification of animals could be a step down a slippery slope toward objectification of people. However, noting Denmark's realistic opportunities and constraints for influencing the global patent regime, their report called on the Danish government to work through the European Economic Community to try to alter international patent law. Regarding the possible ecological consequences of releasing genetically altered animals into the wild, they noted that such animals could dominate or out-compete wild species or transfer unwanted characteristics to them. "Also," they wrote, "there could be risks which one is unable to foresee and therefore cannot assess." On the other hand, the group saw no appreciable ecological hazard in releasing genetically engineered cows or other large domestic animals into fenced fields, and endorsed deep-freezing animal sperm cells and eggs to help preserve biodiversity. Portions of lay panel reports can be incisive and impassioned as well, especially in comparison with the circumspection and dry language that is conventional in expert policy analyses. Having noted that the "idea of genetic normalcy, once far-fetched, is drawing close with the development of a full genetic map," a 1988 U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study of human genome research concluded blandly that "concepts of what is normal will always be influenced by cultural variations and subject to much debate." In contrast, a 1989 Danish consensus panel on the same subject recalled the "frightening" eugenic programs of the 1930s and worried that "the possibility of diagnosing fetuses earlier and earlier in pregnancy in order to find `genetic defects' creates the risk of an unacceptable perception of man--a perception according to which we aspire to be perfect." The lay group went on to appeal for further popular debate on the concept of normalcy. Fearing that parents might one day seek abortions upon learning that a fetus was, say, color blind or left-handed, 14 of the panel's 15 members also requested legislation that would make fetal screening for such conditions illegal under most circumstances. This central concern with social issues becomes much more likely when expert testimony is integrated with everyday citizen perspectives. For instance, while the executive summary of the OTA study on human genome research states that "the core issue" is how divide up resources so that genome research is balanced against other kinds of biomedical and biological research, the Danish consensus conference report, prepared by people whose lives are not intimately bound up in the funding dramas of university and national laboratories, opens with a succinct statement of social concerns, ethical judgments, and political recommendations. And these perspectives are integrated into virtually every succeeding page, whereas the OTA study discusses ethics only in a single discrete chapter on the subject. The Danish consensus conference report concludes with a call for more school instruction in "subjects such as biology, religion, philosophy, and social science"; better popular dissemination of "immediately understandable" information about genetics; and vigorous government efforts to promote the broadest possible popular discussion of "technological and ethical issues." The corresponding OTA study does not even consider such ideas. When the Danish lay group did address the matter of how to divide up resources, they differed significantly from the OTA investigators. Rather than focusing solely on balancing different kinds of biomedical and biological research against one another, they supported basic research in genetics but also called for more research on the interplay between environmental factors and genetic inheritance, and more research on the social consequences of science. They challenged the quest for exotic technical fixes for disease and social problems, pointing out that many proven measures for protecting health and bettering social conditions and work environments are not being applied. Finally, they recommended a more "humanistic and interdisciplinary" national research portfolio that would stimulate a constructive exchange of ideas about research repercussions and permit "the soul to come along." The preceding differences between the OTA and Danish consensus conference reports are typical, not unique to the topic of human genome research. For instance, the introductory chapter of a May 1994 OTA study on the future role of networked information systems in global commerce builds to a portentous and suspenseful conclusion: "Periods of rapid technological advance provide a rare opportunity to reassess and redirect both the nature of a particular technology itself, and the economic and social relationships that are structured around it. Given the significance of the moment, and the potential consequences for winners and losers, care should be given not only to what technology choices are being made, but also to the process of how, and by whom, they are made." Exactly who should participate in such momentous sociotechnological decisions? Besides business and government, is there a role for universities, public-interest groups, workers, consumers, youth, disadvantaged minorities, or simply ordinary citizens? It turns out that the body of the 155-page report barely addresses the issue. There is one page discussing a possible role for workers in government-industry manufacturing extension consultations, and just one sentence mentioning that the Clinton administration was establishing an information superhighway advisory council comprising "key stakeholders including industry, labor, academia, public interest groups, and state and local governments." In other words, the culminating passage, quoted above, from the OTA report's opening chapter appears more as a late-stage afterthought than a result of probing analysis. European lay panelists almost invariably make the issue of who should participate central to their discussion. Their reports are pervaded by environmental, cultural, social, ethical, and political considerations. Because of that pervasiveness, they tend also to be deeply synthetic and interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary). This distinguishes them from many expert reports--such as the OTA genome study, with its discrete "ethics" chapter--that include separate sections with distinct disciplinary perspectives, thus exhibiting less overall integration. Not that consensus conferences are better than the OTA approach in every possible way. While less accessibly written and attentive to social considerations, a traditional OTA report did provide more technical detail and analytic depth. But OTA-style analysis can, in principle, contribute to the consensus conference process. For example, the 1993 Dutch consensus conference on animal biotechnology used a prior OTA study as a starting point for its own more participatory inquiry.... [End of excerpt] * * * Planet Expert, Planet Earth Another way to summarize the differences between a technocratic study (such as those done by OTA) and the reports by lay panelists: The OTA-style produces nice studies of a certain sort, but they are written on Planet Expert by people who spend most of their lives on Planet Expert. Planet Expert is an OK place, but it's not where most human beings live. In contrast, the reports by Danish lay panels read like they were written on Planet Earth. Like the OTA reports, they get the basic, non-contested facts straight. But unlike OTA reports they connect better with the real-life concerns, experiences, and perspectives of everyday people. They pass a basic "social reality test" that expert studies almost invariably fail. If you would like more information about consensus conferences and related processes than my full _Technology Review_ article provides, see also: Joss, Simon and John Durant, eds. 1995. _Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe_. Published by the Science Museum, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2DD, UK). Stewart, John, Elizabeth Kendall, and Anna Coote. 1994. _Citizens' Juries_. (London: Institute for Public Policy Research). Fax +(44) 071-497-0373. The address of the Danish Board of Technology (the organizer of Danish consensus conferences) is: Teknologi-Raadet, Antonigade 4, DK-1106 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Tel. +(45) 33 32 05 03; Fax +(45) 33 91 05 09; World Wide Web: http://www.ing.dk/tekraad My article about consensus conferences draws on documents and insights generously provided by Tarja Cronberg, Anneke Hamstra, Simon Joss, Lars Kluver, Lydia Sterrenberg, Jaap van Oss, Jorn Ravn, and Norman Vig. ***************************************************************** (2) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE The Loka Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to making science and technology responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns. TO FIND OUT MORE about the Loka Institute or to help, visit our Web page (http://www.amherst.edu/~loka) or contact us via e-mail at . For information on obtaining Loka founder Richard Sclove's new book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_, contact your local bookseller or Guilford Press (in the U.S. tel. toll free 800-365-7006; or, from anywhere, fax Guilford Press in the U.S. at +(212)-966-6708 or e-mail: info@guilford.com): "Mr. Sclove is refreshing in the way he rejects ideas so nearly universally held that most people have never thought to question them." -- _New York Times Book Review_ INTERNSHIPS: The Loka Institute may be able to take on additional interns for the fall of 1996 and beyond. We are a small nonprofit organization, and the activities interns are involved in vary from research assistance and writing to assisting in organizing conferences, project development and management, fundraising, managing our Internet lists, Web page updates, helping with clerical and other office work, etc. If you are interested in working with us to promote democratic politics of science and technology, please send a hard copy resume along with a succinct letter explaining your interest to: The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. PROJECT UPDATE: The Loka Institute's initiative to develop a NATIONAL COMMUNITY RESEARCH NETWORK (NCRN)--discussed in Loka Alert 3:1--is moving forward energetically, thanks in part to generous financial and logistical support from two programs at the University of Massachusetts (UMass Extension and the Program in Science, Technology & Society). Members of Loka's NCRN advisory board, plus some additional grassroots representatives, will be attending our national planning meeting for the NCRN on July 19-21, 1996. TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTING THE AGENDA FOR THE CONFERENCE AND SHAPING THE DIALOGUE, please subscribe to our community research listserv: send e-mail to with a blank subject line and "subscribe scishops (your name)" as the message text. FUNDRAISING UPDATE: We are pleased to report 1996 grant awards to date from C.S. Fund, the Menemsha Fund, New-Land Foundation, plus one anonymous foundation. We have also received generous donations from many Loka Alert subscribers. Thanks to one and all! TO HELP KEEP LOKA'S WORK ALIVE AND THRIVING, please write a check drawn in U.S. dollars to "Proteus/Loka" and mail it to the Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. We have an ambitious action agenda, but we can't possibly implement it without a larger and more stable funding base. Contributions are tax-deductible on U.S. tax returns. For further information on contributing, contact us at Loka@amherst.edu or via the address and phone number at the top of this Alert. MEDIA UPDATE: During the past two months Loka Executive Director Richard Sclove did a flurry of media interviews on different aspects of democratizing science and technology, including: 1/2 hour live on CNN and one hour on Talk News Television; nationally syndicated radio shows "Democracy Now" (Pacifica), "We the People with Jerry Brown," and "The Jim Bohanon Show" (NBC); many other radio and TV interviews (e.g., WNYC, WABC, WBAI, and WEVD radio in New York City, "The Morning Show" on KPFA radio in the Bay Area, KCRA-TV in northern California); quotes with photograph in _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ (May 3, 1996); interviews on both Danish and German National Radio; and an extended interview with photographs (and misleading misquotes!) in _Technisch Weekblad_ (the main technology newspaper in the Netherlands). RECENT PUBLICATIONS: (1) We are delighted that Loka Alert 2-9 by Marcie Abramson Sclove, "Science, Andean Wisdom & Other Ways of Knowing," has been reprinted as "Andean Diversity," in _In Context_, No. 44 (Spring/Summer 1996), pp. 8-9. (This is the last issue of _In Context_ magazine, but also the first issue of a successor: _Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures_.) (2) A revised and expanded version of Loka Alert 1:6 by Richard Sclove and Jeffrey Scheuer appears as: "On the Road Again: If Information Highways Are Anything Like Interstate Highways--Watch Out!," in _Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflict & Social Choices_, ed. Rob Kling (2nd ed., San Diego: Academic Press, 1996). (3) Richard Sclove's "Making Technology Democratic," appears in _Resisting the Virtual Life: The Culture and Politics of Information_, eds. Jim Brook and Iain Boal (San Francisco: City Lights, 1995), pp. 85-101. It has been reprinted also in _Up for Grabs: Communications Practice and Policy in the Public Interest_ (Washington, DC: The Benton Foundation and The National Telecommunications & Information Administration, 1996). (4) The on-line journal NETFUTURE includes a five-part interview with Richard Sclove on "The Politics of Cyberspace" in No.s 6, 7, 8, 10 and 15 (Feb. - April 1996). You can find it on the Web at: http://www.ora.com/staff/stevet/netfuture/ TRAVEL & PUBLIC SPEAKING UPDATE: In April and May, Loka director Richard Sclove spoke at: o The Public Interest Science Conference in Eugene, Oregon o The Learning Alliance in New York City (along with Kirkpatrick Sale and Stanley Aronowitz) o Plenary address to the national meeting of the Dutch science shops in Groningen (along with Josee van Eijndhoven, director of the Rathenau Institute--the Dutch office of technology assessment) o Lecture to the Syndicat National des Chercheurs Scientifiques (French Scientific Researchers Union) in Paris. o Loka staff member Madeleine Scammell spoke about community research at the University of Hartford. While in Europe Richard Sclove also met with staff members at the Danish Board of Technology (inventors of the consensus conference process described above), gave a talk to the Sustainable Technology Development Programme in Delft, visited with staff members at many science shops in the Netherlands and Denmark, gave seminars at the Danish Technological University and Roskilde University, and met with leading participatory designers Morten Kyng and Kim Halskov Madsen at the University of Aarhus. He also dined at the home of the Canadian ambassador to the Netherlands in The Hague, along with a team of Canadian researchers who have been inspired by Loka's efforts to try to establish a national community research network in Canada. Sclove's overall comment: "Wow, I learned a ton!" (Stay tuned for more information in future Loka Alerts). Traffic on the LOKA INSTITUTE E-MAIL LIST (Loka-L)--which distributes Loka Alerts as a one-way news-and-opinion distribution service--is intentionally kept low (an average of one message per month), to protect overbusy people from unwanted clutter. To be added to, or removed from, the list, please send an e-mail message to that effect to: loka@amherst.edu TO PARTICIPATE MORE ACTIVELY in promoting a democratic politics of science and technology, please join the Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network (FASTnet). Just send an e-mail message to with a blank subject line and "subscribe FASTnet" as the message text. You will receive an automated reply giving more details. FASTnet is now a moderated discussion list, which protects subscribers from receiving posts inappropriate to the list's purpose. LOKA STAFF & HELPER UPDATE: Loka staff member Madeleine Scammell is preparing to depart for a summer sabbatical; we eagerly await her return in the fall. We are grateful for the help we received this spring from Loka intern Dug North. Our new summer interns are Len Fiorilli, Lily Louie, and Eff Smith. Laurie Millman continues to contribute essentially as our Development Associate. "Virtual" Loka volunteer David Schecter (based in San Francisco) has emerged as a big-time player in our effort to develop a National Community Research Network. We have been receiving *major* help in organizing our National Community Research Network planning conference from the directors and staff of UMass Extension and the U. Mass. Program in Science, Technology & Society. And of course we receive continuous advice and assistance of all kinds from the members of our two national advisory boards and from many subscribers (over 3,000 now) on the various Loka Internet discussion lists. Thanks to all! ####