Decades of research needed for substantial progress

Photo: ESA/AOES Medialab

Policy makers and society faces major challenges for the development of climate engineering. But according to a recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment at the Bundestag, TAB (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag): “The level of technological and scientific knowledge on the effects and side effects of various climate engineering options is still very limited.” The report, commissioned by the Committee for Education, Research and Technology Assessment, considers current technological research for the two main systematically different approaches (CDR – carbon dioxide removal and RM – radiation management), alongside existing strategies, the current regulatory framework, research policies and the need for public discourse. TAB suggests the (potentially highly controversial) status of climate engineering has been ‘significantly enhanced’ as it has been taken up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is likely to result in increased media attention. However, debate at a policymaking and societal level is taking place in ‘only very few’ countries at present. Ethical, legal and social criteria need to be considered and expanding fundamental knowledge is a critical requirement in this regard: “Improved information provision seems to be absolutely essential to enable the general public to take a constructive role in assessment and decisionmaking processes relating to climate engineering.”

$254 billion to monitor UN development goals

Next year the United Nations will announce its sustainable development goals (SDGs). A 15-year framework – currently consisting of 17 goals and 169 targets – for tackling issues ranging from extreme poverty to climate change. The UN has called for a ‘data revolution’: “Data are the lifeblood of decisionmaking and the raw material for accountability. Without high-quality data providing the right information on the right things at the right time; designing, monitoring and evaluating effective policies becomes almost impossible.” (A world that counts, The Secretary-General’s Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development).

Economist Morten Jerven, in an assessment paper for think tank the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has put a cost on the UN’s data revolution: $254 billion. And his estimate for providing data to support targets would only cover minimum data collection. At the national level, there are capacity issues. Poor countries don’t have the resources to maintain a statistical office, or train analysts, or disseminate data. Six out of 49 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have never had a household survey. As a point of comparison, the report looks at industrialized countries. Statistics Norway had a budget of 0.2% of government spending in 2013. Assuming the international community would spend a similar proportion on statistical analysis, it suggests 5 (not 169) SDGs could be monitored.

In reaching the figure of $254 billion – or $1.5 billion per target over the next 15 years – Jerven has suggested minimum data requirements: a population census every 10 years; Demographic and health surveys every 5 years; Living Standards Measurement Study every 5 years; Annual Core Welfare Questionnaire. There are more ambitious aims for the 2015 goals. Jerven argues that the data revolution is likely to over-stretch the capacities of statistical offices, shifting resources away from local needs towards global monitoring activities. The UN’s data aims: “Setting tailored targets and disaggregating data in order to address inequalities within all goals, targets and indicators” should therefore be tempered by moderation and an appreciation of the resources needed to produce those data, according to the report.

Jerven gives examples of how good data have real benefits, but also the dangers of inferior data: “particularly if demand overshoots supply and the data provision process is incentivized through a system of rewards and punishment. Unfortunately, these conditions were met in the previous MDG [Millennium Development goals] agenda.”

Considering the likely benefits, enabling the data revolution for 169 targets would not be effective. Is data a catalyst for change? Jerven: “It is tempting to think that  having the correct information will improve policy choices, but there is no automatic connection.”

Read More?

The Copenhagen Consensus Center, established in May 2004, is a non-profit organization that commissions, conducts and publishes new research and analysis into competing spending priorities. The Post-2015 Consensus project brings together more than 50 top economists, NGOs, international agencies and businesses to identify the targets with the greatest benefit-to-cost ratio for the next set of UN development goals.

Post-2015 Consensus: Data for Development Assessment, Jerven

Shale gas debates are in full swing in Europe but focusing on ‘risk and safety’ does not reveal the whole picture according to a paper from the Rathenau Instituut. The Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs commissioned a study to highlight the importance of clarifying the opportunities and risks involved, and the question of whether this is properly regulated. The Rathenau Instituut suggested the ‘risk and safety’ focus of this study should be expanded to include other  dimensions. Their media analysis showed the debate is also about how the role of shale gas extraction worldwide affects the Netherlands, as well as on local support (Waes, 2013). Dutch members of parliament have now stressed the need for a broader debate.

Verbreding van de discussie over schaliegaswinning. Arnoud van Waes, Annick de Vries, Rinie van Est, Frans Brom. Rathenau Instituut, 27-6-2014

www.rathenau.nl/publicaties/publicatie/broadening-the-debate-on-shale-gas.html

PACITA policy hearing experts & organizers from right to left: Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea (Spain), Klaas Dolsma, André Krom and Dirk Stemerding (the Netherlands), Mara Almeida (Portugal).

An important future challenge facing healthcare systems in Europe is how to deal with data and technologies provided by advanced genetic research. DNA sequencing technologies are rapidly becoming cheaper and faster. Experts expect that this will ultimately give us the tools to understand individual genomes and to accurately predict their consequences, thus allowing for detailed risk profiling of individuals as the basis for targeted medical interventions. The promise is more effective health care practices that are more personalized, predictive, preventive, and consumer-driven.

However, experts also see a clear threat that premature technology and market driven applications of DNA sequencing will inundate physicians and patients with meaningless or uninterpretable data. There is a wide gap between our ability to generate ‘more data for less money’ and our ability to understand them or validate their clinical utility. Indeed, political intervention is needed to guarantee that the use of genomic technologies in public health services does not lead to detrimental consequences.

Step-by-step approach needed

These promises and concerns warrant a careful, step-by-step approach to the development and diffusion of genome-based information and technologies. The challenge for policy makers at the European and national level is what a step-by-step approach might involve in their own countries. As the Future Panel process made clear, we should not think of the future in terms of Public Health Genomics as a ‘road map’ taking us in one particular direction. We should rather carefully look at the variety of ways in which any single new development could affect the health care landscape in the future. Determining acceptable ways in which health care practices could be improved by genomic information and technologies thus requires political and societal debate.

One important issue is the increasing quantity of data travelling between research and patient care whereby data collected for medical purposes are shared for research purposes and statistical analysis. Most variation in our DNA has not yet been investigated and we cannot yet assign potential consequences to this variation for individual health and disease. In order to establish such relationships, it will be necessary to combine clinical and genomic data from large numbers of individuals and to collect these data in an extended network of ‘biobanks ‘. This raises challenging questions about data security and privacy, as becomes clear from the Special Report in this VOLTA issue.

DNA sequencing technologies are also being introduced already in a clinical context, especially for diagnosis in children born with congenital disabilities and/or mental retardation, and for prenatal diagnosis of abnormalities observed during ultrasound. As available DNA-sequencing technologies are rapidly becoming cheaper and faster, it may become more and more routine to sequence genes or even whole genomes of individuals to screen them for particular medical conditions or health risks. Possibilities for whole-genome sequencing in widely established programs for reproductive and newborn screening are currently intensively debated by scientists and clinicians and may raise in the near future difficult questions of what and when to screen for.

Newborn screening

An important development raising debates about possibilities of genome-wide screening is the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a replacement for established forms of prenatal screening for Down Syndrome. NIPT is based on the analysis of foetal DNA isolated from the maternal blood and can be used as a screening tool for Down Syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities. However, as soon as NIPT becomes widely available in a setting of routinely offered prenatal screening, it may also create opportunities for the introduction of more genome-wide forms of screening. In this context, new questions will arise about what information to offer in the context of reproductive choice, questions that may become especially urgent as a result of commercial initiatives in offering NIPT.

Established programs for newborn screening (NBS) are another context in which genome-wide screening might be considered. NBS programs in Europe currently aim to identify 1 to 30 treatable conditions. Taking into account current developments in DNA sequencing, targeted genome-wide screening for a panel of well-chosen diseases could be envisaged based on the criteria used or suggested today to develop a screening program. If indeed a switch would be made to genome-wide screening in NBS programs, a more far-reaching possibility would be to keep the whole genome sequence of the newborn for future use. The sequence information could be stored in the clinical record to be available for analysis when dealing with specific individual health issues or risks later in life.

Obviously these new possibilities raise challenging questions, both about the scope of genome-wide screening options offered to individuals, and about the importance and meaning of informed consent as a fundamental patient right. How to avoid that genome-wide screening becomes an intractable burden to informed decision-making? And to what extent do parents have the right to make far-reaching decisions about full genome analysis for their children without knowing the possible benefits of such an analysis at the time taken?

Policymakers will increasingly have to face such questions in the near future. The aim of the PACITA Future Panel project has been to enable parliamentarians, policy makers, health care providers and other stakeholders to make informed and country-specific decisions about the introduction of genome-based information and technologies (GBIT) into a variety of health care settings. The project yielded suggestions for a step-by-step approach to the introduction of GBIT in health care on a European level. A challenge for national governments is now to determine what a step by step approach to the introduction of GBIT in health care will require in their country.

Future Panel

Parliament to discuss issues and options for the future of ‘public health genomics’. The event in Lisbon concluded one of the three PACITA demonstration projects. The project was a collaborative experience involving partners from The Netherlands, Germany, Lithuania and Portugal.

At the start of the project in November 2012, parliamentarians from the Future Panel identified major policy questions relating to the future of public health genomics. These were the starting point for an expert consultation process resulting in four Expert Working Group Reports focusing on different themes. On the basis of these reports an Expert Paper was produced focusing on policy issues raised by developments in public health genomics. Finally, policy options for dealing with these issues have been described in an extended Policy Brief that served as an agenda for the Policy Hearing in Lisbon.

Text: Dirk Stemerding and André Krom

Photo courtesy of the Portuguese Parliament

GAO report on nanomanufacturing

What are future nanotech developments? How big will they be? Are the US R&D investments in nanomanufacturing sufficient? What effect will nanotechnology have on the environment, our health and safety? Those were the questions nano experts addressed in a strategic forum held by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment and Human Health, is the result.

More intense competition

Members of the forum anticipate further scientific breakthroughs that will fuel new engineering developments and more intense international competition. Although limited data on international investments made comparisons difficult, participants see the US as likely to lead in nanotechnology research and development (R&D). Challenges to US competitiveness in nanomanufacturing include inadequate US participation and leadership in international standard setting; the lack of a national vision for a US nanomanufacturing capability; and the actions of competitor nations. According to a participant, some ‘were playing by new rules’. There are funding or investment gaps in the United States which could hamper innovators’ attempts to transition nanotechnology from R&D to full-scale manufacturing.

The Valley of Death and the Missing Middle

A holisitic vision is needed for US nano manufacturing according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

The significant development costs for nanotechnology projects has led to funding scenarios which participants described as the ‘valley of death’ and the ‘missing middle’: the research and funding gap that can occur after the initial development of in a new technology and its subsequent development; or the lack of funding related to maturing manufacturing innovation. “High costs can act as an effective barrier to entry for small and medium-sized companies that have innovations in technology but lack the resources needed to carry their innovations all the way to commercialization and full-scale production.”

A participant suggests that this is not the case in China, Russia and the European Union. “Government investments in establishing technology platforms, technology transfer, and commercialization are higher in other countries than in the United States.”

The Forum suggests three approaches to address these challenges: strengthen US innovation by updating current innovation-related policies and programs; promote US innovation in manufacturing in public-private partnerships; and design a strategy for attaining a holistic vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing. Significant research is needed to understand the risks associated with nanomaterials and multiple participants advocated a collaborative effort, in which nanotechnology stakeholders develop standards for measurement and nomenclature, to help assess and address environmental health and safety (EHS) risks.

Read More?

Nanomanufacturing Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. Highlights of a forum Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States GAO-14-181SP Jan 2014.

About the GAO

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the ‘congressional watchdog,’ GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes.

Text: Ann Maher

Photo: iStockphoto

Two decades of raising awareness

The ITA, Austria’s only dedicated TA institution, celebrates its 20th anniversary in June with a kick-off event and conference at the Austrian Academy of Sciences exploring the connection between responsible research and TA. Two decades of research has seen the ITA’s involvement in a wide range of projects dealing with the regulation of nanotechnologies, food safety, synthetic biology and recently co-hosting a large scale citizen’s forum on surveillance technologies as part of the EU initiative SurPRISE. It is constantly strengthening its relationship to parliament and international TA networks such as EPTA and NTA.

“Building a community is very important to us”, stresses director Michael Nentwich. “Technology assessment is not something that is done just for a small group of experts. We want to offer up our research results to decision makers in a way that gives them more control over their respective fields, and we strongly believe that public participation is a crucial source of knowledge in this process. I am really looking forward to celebrate our 20th anniversary with so many colleagues who helped raise awareness for TA and bring it to a whole new level in Europe”. Guest of honour is Professor Renate Mayntz, the German doyenne of sociology, who was recently given a lifetime achievement award by the German Sociological Association.

Luma.Launisch, winners of the city of Vienna’s Kreativ award, will contribute an audio-visual installation and a visual symphony designed especially for the ITA.

The ITA – Celebrating 20 Years + NTA6-TA14, Vienna, 2-4 June 2014

Text: Ann Maher.

The TA PhD programme at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal) Faculty of Sciences and Technology (FCT-UNL) is the only one of its kind in Europe. It is structured in collaboration with the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology with support from universities in Frankfurt, Duisburg-Essen, Liège, Sofia, Vilnius, and other experts from TA institutes (mostly from the PACITA network). The PhD programme develops studies and knowledge in emergent knowledge fields including e-mobility, brain-computer interfaces, health TA, nanotechnology, energy storage, cloud computing, and railway and road transport. The duration of the programme is typically 4 years. Most students are actively involved in the national TA network, and take part in several PACITA activities (e.g. practitioner workshops, summer schools, TA conferences). Students from other countries such as Brazil, Austria, Turkey, Bulgaria and Lithuania have also taken part. The courses are in Portuguese and English. The enrolment period for the 2014 winter semester (starting in September) is open until the end of June.

Security comes at the price of privacy. Or so we have been led to believe. But in focusing on this ‘tradeoff’, we ignore the crucial and controversial link between the two: surveillance.

Informed public debate needed

If we want to be safe we can’t always be anonymous particularly when we are in public spaces. But is sufficient consideration given to how this impacts on our privacy?

The FP7 Project SurPRISE (surveillance, privacy, security) coordinated by the Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences is a three-year collaborative project launched in 2012, which is re-examining the relationship between security and privacy. An emergent body of work is questioning the validity of the oft-cited securityprivacy trade-off and examining whether, in current security policies and practices, there is sufficient consideration given to the impact of security measures on private citizens: “European politicians and decision-makers seem to assume that citizens accept surveillant security measures and avoid in depth debate about the consequences for their privacy.”

A key aim of the project is to identify factors that contribute to the shaping of security technologies as effective, non-privacy-infringing and socially legitimate security devices.

Research in the first phase of the project has been structured in three parts: technological developments, the evolution of privacy legislation within the EU, and alternative solutions for security News problems. The resulting reports centre on new surveillance-oriented security technologies, such as Smart CCTV, drones, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and body scanners, which are being currently being used to reinforce security within the EU. The reports explore the challenges and opportunities in regulation concerning privacy and security and examine the societal and legal dimensions of the security-privacy trade-off. A main objective is that citizens discuss these issues and their privacy
implications. 2,000 citizens from 9 European countries will be consulted at meetings and are expected to contribute a diverse spread of opinions.

A very important element in these discussions is consideration of alternatives that do not make extensive use of surveillance technologies but have security-enhancing effects. Policy is needed to: “counter a reductionist exclusionary and surveillance-oriented strategy.” Many of the suggested alternative security enhancing solutions address social inequalities and social injustice and “require a reactivation of what could be called a ‘communitarian spirit’”. Crime prevention needs to be tackled at its roots. Urban and environmental design, the ‘design’ of society rather than control and surveillance measures, are vitally important because security systems, no matter how advanced by their nature, leave room for error. They cannot offer a blanket guarantee against crime.

An informed public debate about what could be called ‘acceptable’ risks is what is required:

“It should take for granted the premise that liberty and freedom are risky in many respects and that both are rooted in the fundamental right to privacy, however this concept is spelled out.”

More information about the SurPRISE Project together with links and news for other surveillance and security related projects and events is available at  http://surprise-project.eu

Photo: iStockphoto.

The pan-European DESSI system

The controversy over full body scanners shows that failed projects and high costs can be the result of inadequate decision making when it comes to public security systems.

Several European Technology Assessment institutions have come together for the FP7-funded DESSI project that has developed a decision-making methodology and online tool to help choose the best security option in a given situation. Should drones be used in Norwegian search and rescue at sea? What about security for Danish bus drivers? Or  appropriate safety measures in Austrian courthouses?

The idea behind DESSI is that decisions concerning security must be evaluated from a broader perspective than simply technology and the model uses seven key dimensions against which a security option must be assessed. These dimensions range from the legal framework and fundamental rights to the political implications and acceptability. It can be applied to a wide variety of security options.

It is carried out in three phases: the description of the security problem, the description of the alternative solutions and the assessment of these. These three phases make the decision-making process more transparent, involving diverse  participants such as employees, external security experts, scientists and industry representatives. In addition, the tool makes the assessments visual throughout the process.

DESSI was developed by a consortium of partners in Denmark, Germany, Austria and Norway and was funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the EU. For the online support tool guiding users through the decision-making process, go to www.securitydecisions.org.

As part of France’s ambitious public consultation process on sustainable energy, a Citizen Day took place on the 25th May 2013 using the World Wide Views methodology developed by the Danish Board of Technology. In 11 regions of metropolitan France and 3 overseas départements, 1,115 citizens from all walks of life discussed issues relating to the energy transition. Being involved led to a widely shared sense of solidarity: 77% want similar meetings in the future.

The French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Delphine Batho was impressed: “The energy politics were definitely challenged by the citizens, and their wishes that this debate should lead to concrete decisions.”

For more information see www.transition-energetique.gouv.fr
For more information on the World Wide Views method see Masterclass