ICABR Conference June 20 th , 2013

1. ICABR Conference June 20th, 2013 Holly Longstaff, David Secko, Gabriela Capurro, Haluk Dag Concordia University, Montréal, QC Canada

2. “Advanced Biofuels Deliberation” event Objective: to obtain the views of 26 citizens on the need for advanced lignocellulosicbiofuelsin Canada and, if a need existed, what would constitute a socially acceptable way to its development and production. Why? Fossil fuels: unsustainable/negative impacts. New focus on sustainable fuels (Dangerman & Schellnhuber, 2013; Van den Bergh, 2013; and Dale et al., 2013). Challenges of 1st generation biofuels : economic/environ./ ethical/policy impacts (Naik et al., 2010; Nigam & Singh., 2011; Sims et al., 2008; Pin Koh & Ghazoul, 2008; Renewable Fuels Agency, 2008) Impacts on: food prices (Rathmann et al., 2010; Koning et al., 2008); water usage/energy requirements (De Vries et al., 2010), andfeedstocks(Efroymson et al., 2013)

3. Why an “Advanced Biofuels Deliberation” event? • Some arguments in this area suggest need for public deliberation to: • identify sources of diversity of opinion • establish acceptable range of judgment • provide models of public participation in governance to manage emerging issues while maintaining public trust • Biofuels presented as a solution to challenges of fossil fuel usage, greenhouse gases and energy security; • public and expert responses/reactions to biofuels can polarize • polarization may change depending on what people have an affinity for, their trust and how they see problem/solution

4. Public Perceptions and Biofuels • Lack of public engagement/awareness around bioenergy & biofuels(Van de Velde et al., 2010; Van de Velde et al., 2011b; and Zhang et al., 2011) • need for informed dialogue & public engagement is widely recognized(Ribeiro, 2013) • Public opinions about biofuels likely influenced by: • geographic location & cost (Ribeiro, 2013) • economic impacts & feedstocks sources (Delshad et al., 2010; Van de Velde et al., 2011a)and • impacts on food and water supplies(University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2009 and Kubik, 2006). • Our event aimed to create: • meaningful, reasoned dialogue, informed by accurate scientific data and a range of relevant perspectives (Chambers, 2003) • balanced recommendations for policy makers about socially acceptable approaches for advanced biofuel development/production in Canada

5. Deliberative Democracy • Involving public in science policy- and decision-making is a way to: • incorporate technical & wide social perspectives • support responsible decision-makers on controversial choices • build dynamic governance (Collins and Evans, 2002; Jasanoff, 2003; Fukuyama & Furger, 2007; Blacksher et al., 2012) • Deliberative democracy is a set of evolving methods often aimed at giving citizens the opportunity to: • learn about a topic • engage with others and • develop collective recommendations (O’Doherty & Davidson, 2010)

6. Role of Deliberative Public Engagement Events • Counter “capture” • Represent diversity • Promote civic-minded public dialogue • Support policy decisions and • Promote and sustain public trust (Burgess & Tansey. “Democratic deficit & the politics of "informed and inclusive" consultation”. Hindsight and Foresight on Emerging Technologies. Einsiedel & Parker. (2008)

7. Structured Deliberative Process

8. Information materials for participants An extensive booklet Hands-on experiment Presentations by four expert speakers and Q&A sessions (experts only interacted with the group during their presentation) Pre-event and post-event online surveys

9. Agenda of the event

10. Method and Assessment Developed in collaboration with K.C. O’Doherty (University of Guelph, Canada) and M. M. Burgess (UBC, Canada), our method of deliberative engagement has been replicated eight times. Our event was the most recent one. For more on the method and its assessment, see: • O’DohertyKC, AK Hawkins, MM Burgess. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Social Science and Medicine (2012). • MacKenzieMK, KC O'Doherty. Deliberating Future Issues: Minipublics and Salmon Genomics. Journal of Public Deliberation(2011) • O’Doherty, K., Burgess, M., Secko, D.M. (2010). “Sequencing the Salmon Genome: A Deliberative Public Engagement,” Genomics, Society and Policy 6(1): 16-33. • LongstaffH, MM Burgess. Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Understanding of Science (2010). • LongstaffH, DM Secko. Media Influence on Biobank Deliberations. Journal of Health & Mass Communication (2010) • Secko, D. M., Burgess, M.M., O’Doherty, K. (2008). “Perspectives on Engaging the Public in the Ethics of Emerging Biotechnologies: From Salmon to Biobanks to Neuroethics,” Accountability in Research 15(4): 283-302

11. Methods for ICABR paper: Problem Based Learning (PBL) • Additionally, Problem Based Learning (PBL) was used through hypothetical case studies in the issue identification stage. • Problem Based Learning promotes active learning (Prince, 2004), help participants work through complex issues and encourages group discussions. It is used to: • makes participants ‘metacognitively aware’ • helps integrate their existing knowledge with new and required information to find optimal solutions.

12. Methods / Our case study • Case studies are often used in Problem Based Learning and its use is new in science education. • Our case study was developed by the research team and evaluated by the experts to: • identify examples that would stimulate broad discussion • extract a full range of participant views • help participants become comfortable with deliberation • allow them to speak their mind and • initiate respectful challenging of ideas held by various group members

13. Methods / Research Questions RQ1: What issues did the case raise for discussion? RQ2: Based on the issues raised, how did participants discuss the role and impact of technology in the production of advanced biofuels? And how did this vary across the groups? RQ3: Based on the issues raised, how did participants discuss the role and impact of genomics and biotechnology in the production of advanced biofuels? And how did this vary across the groups? RQ4: Based on the issues raised, how did participants discuss the issue of situating a large-scale advanced biofuel production facility in their area? And how did this vary across the groups?

14. ResultsRQ1: What issues did the case raise for discussion? • More concerns were mentioned about the use of technology in advanced biofuel production than its potential benefits • Benefits: • job creation • less reliance on fossil fuels • Concerns: • risks associated with research and development activities • consequences of new technology • Participants also mentioned uncertainties about using technology to promote advanced biofuel production • Return on investment • Impact on environment

15. Major themes across small group deliberations (RQ2)

16. ResultsRQ2: The role and impact of technology • Only topics related to RQ2 were discussed by all three groups • Common topics across three groups: • concerns for funding for new technology and feasibility studies (T3) • new jobs/training opportunities (T4) • impacts on the environment/human health (T7) “One of our big concerns, obviously the pollution and health, and how can it adversely affect the people? Based on past experience, we don’t want to get burned again. So the Health Safety and the Environment department is always an oversight team, trying to minimize some of the adverse effects. They are probably going to have a whole new set of problems to think about.” (Male participant, group B)

17. Prevalence of major themes across small group deliberations (RQ 3)

18. Results RQ4: Not in my back yard (NIMBY) concerns • Similar to genomics and biotechnology themes, NIMBY concerns were included in the case study as part of the scenario: “The government begins the process of choosing to situate a large-scale advanced biofuel production facility in your area” • These concerns are controversial and create public reactions such as: • Love Canal controversy in the US (1970s) or nuclear waste storage issues • Only one participant from group A briefly discussed his concerns about large-scale advanced biofuel production facilities (T15)

19. Conclusion • Problem Based Learning is effective for deliberative public engagements • Participants’ emphasis on concerns about use of technology could be seen as problematic • Discussion on role and impact of technology focused on 3 topics: • (a) potential for new opportunities balanced against (b) funding concerns, and (c) impact on environment and human health. • This suggests that information in case study helped participants to understand complex trade-offs required for advancement of biofuels in Canada

20. Conclusion • It could be argued that use of case studies unnecessarily frames/narrows deliberative discussions • Ability of case studies to focus decisions on complex trade-offs may have decreased potential controversy surrounding GMOs and NIMBY • Issues related to these two topics not raised significantly during small group discussions • can’t draw any definitive conclusions about this relationship without additional research • Lack of controversy may be due to composition of this particular group of citizens

21. Acknowledgements Elyse Amend, Gabriela Capurro, Patricia Hanney, Ernest Hoffman, Shereen Joseph, Holly Longstaff, Anna Meshcherova, David Secko, Wendy Smith, Geoffrey Tobin and Shirley Tran www.csjp.ca