Plant and Food Research and ESRFRST Funded Project #13667 2008-12 Presentation to the End Users Workshopheld at Victoria University of Wellington8 December 2008. Dr Karen Cronin Science Leader (Science, Technology and Society) Environmental Science and Research ESR Wellington
Future developments in food science & technology • Improving communication between scientists and society through ‘dialogue’ • How the research project will work • How you can be involved • What we hope to achieve
Thinking about changes in our food… What was the typical family meal when you were growing up?
Food trends today… What kinds of food are we eating today?
Food trends tomorrow… What kinds of food might we be eating in 20 years from now?
How do we define what will be“Future Foods”? • Technological imagination • Science and technology investment decisions • Government policy • Public and consumer preferences • Environmental changes • Social expectations
Developments in ‘future food’ science Functional foods: whole, fortified or enhanced foods that provide benefits beyond the provision of simple nutrients (Omega-3 fatty acids in salmon, fortified margarines with plant sterol and stanol esters to reduce cholesterol) Nutraceuticals: any bioactive component that delivers a health benefit (supplements) Nutrigenomics: diet factor in chronic disease, influenced by a person’s genetic make up. Use genetic testing to design diet – promote function foods to match. GM foods – trans genic or intra genetic modification Nanotechnology and food – delivering genetic changes inside a genome, sensors for food borne disease, food packaging materials.
Other food science trends: organics and sustainable agriculture Zespri Organic Massey Univ. Organic tomatoes & peppers field trial Pesticide residue testing
The global context for future food science and technology Food production affected by climate change – temperature shifts, floods, droughts, soil quality, new pests and diseases, land use conflicts Contribution to climate change by food production e.g. methane, forest loss Energy demands: pressure on land use to produce biofuels/ biopolymers v. food crops; energy inputs to farming Marine ecosystems: pressure on resources x climate impacts Growing world population, poverty, food shortages Changing markets, geopolitical shifts Globalisation of science sector
Social trends in Western society Aging population Reducing fertility Increasing ethnic diversity Obesity Diseases of affluence Increasing connections between food, health, well being, spirituality
Social responses to new technologies ‘The Public’: citizens not just consumers Growing expectations for accountability in science Social purpose, end use v. commercial or operational benefit
The changing social contract between science and society • Post War period: Science expected to produce reliable knowledge and communicate its discoveries to society. “Science speaking to Society” • Now: “Society Speaking Back” Scientific knowledge must be socially robust i.e. valid inside and outside the laboratory, involving wider experts and lay experts, sensitive to social implications. Knowledge production is transparent and participative. Reciprocity: requiring the public to understand how science works and science to understand how its publics work. Gibbons, M. (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 401 C81
Downstream effects of science and technology Science innovation and society Science policy and investment decisions Upstream Public Engagement Science Innovation Pipeline: Theory Lab Applied Technology Products Market Economy Society Physical Environment Karen Cronin January 2008
Moving public engagement upstream Downstream- effects, risks Prediction and measurement of effects Application of controls Upstream – consider implications earlier in the technology cycle Input to selection of alternatives earlier in the policy cycle
Plant and Food Research, and ESRFRST Funded Project #13667 2008-12Engaging scientists, industry, government and the community in dialogue on future food technologies • Explore social and economic context before committing to science investment • Futures workshop to scope future food technologies • Dialogue between stakeholders • Identifying preferred R,S&T • Input to strategy and decision-making
Taking a “Science, Technology and Society” STS approach How can scientists engage with society?
Purpose of sciencecommunication Most scientists see it as a one way transfer of information to: • Educate people so they like the science • ‘Make them understand’ • Recruit people into the science profession • Inspire people about science Davies, S.R. Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication Vol 29 No 4 June 2008 pp 413-434
Science communication also seen by some scientists as: • Enjoyable for scientists to talk about their work • A responsibility • Part of being accountable to the public • Empowering the public to discuss issues • A two-way dialogue: to talk about issues with the public and find out what they think • Finding middle ground on an issue • Coming up with new views or ideas
Science communication Deficit Model=selling science to the public Engagement Model = communicating with the public about science
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.
“[I would like to see] better processes – that acknowledge the wisdom and world views of all people involved. … the power difference e.g. scientists (knowledge holder) vs. myself (spiritual concerns- lay person knowledge) can be very frustrating…” #Community“I would hope that we learn to engage the public in a different way and before the debate [takes off]. People are curious about the technology. As scientists we need to focus more on the community.” #Scientist“Hands Across the Water – developing dialogue between stakeholders in the NZ biotechnology debate”Cronin and Jackson, 2004.
Future Food Innovation in New Zealand will be influenced by.. • Trends in the science • Trends in the global context for food research and production • Social trends • Market trends/ consumer preferences • Our values and priorities • Responsiveness in the science sector • Innovation and investment strategy
Phase I Set up project team Communication with stakeholders Phase II Scope future trajectories Review upstream engagement Review NZ,international research Map out emerging technologies Match technology life cycle to opportunities for engagement Phase III Set up stakeholder workshops Issues Mapping Workshops – general, Maori Phase IV Link to science/industry/government strategies Evaluation Final report and briefings Project Timeline 2008-12 Phase I Set up and Communication Phase II Research and Analysis Phase III StakehoIder Engagement Phase IV Strategic Development 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Benefits to End Users: • Involvement in the research process • Access to latest research/ NZ and international literature • Contribute views and information • Involvement with other End Users • Participation in workshops • Access to research findings • Input to future strategy
What we hope the project will achieve: • Market and social intelligence • Improved understanding of social and market context for future food innovation • Identify drivers of risk acceptance • Opportunities for development • Improved dialogue/ reduced conflict • Socially and commercially robust investment • Improved responsiveness/ resilience for future strategy • International best practice in ‘science and society’ dialogue
ContactDetails: www.esr.cri.nz Home – Integrative Research for Sustainability – Science Technology and Society – Future Foods Dr Karen Cronin, ESR firstname.lastname@example.org Dr Nigel Larsen, Plant and Food email@example.com http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/socialscienceandsystemsthinking/Pages/FutureFoodTechnologiesresearchproject.aspx