I

F A

S

Public Perceptions of Agrifood Nanotechnologies: Using Extension to

Assess and Link Stakeholder Knowledges with Public

PoliciesDr. John V. Stone

Applied Anthropologist

Associate Director and Senior Research ScientistInstitute for Food And Agricultural Standards

Michigan State University

NCSU Workshop on Communicating Health and Safety Risks on Emerging Technologies in the 21st Century

McKimmon Center, North Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, NC, August 28-29, 2008

I

F A

S

Presentation Goals

• Background to Extension Project– Support, Participants– Why this project, how did we get here

• Project Description– Goals, conceptual foundation– Primary Activities

• Desired/Anticipated Outcomes– Capacity building in Extension

• Knowledge of potential nanotech applications in food & ag. systems

• Ethnographic Risk Perception Mapping, local knowledge systems– Toward ‘Socially Responsive’ Agrifood Nanotechnology

Policies• Future Directions

– Other Extension-based programs (e.g., NOAA, FS, NMEP)?

I

F A

S

Extension Project Background: Support

and Participants• Supported by National Research

Initiative, Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension Service, USDA (2008-11)

• Participants Include:– Extension programs of seven states (AZ, CA,

FL, IA, MI, NC, NM), including Historically Black (1890) and Tribal (1994) Land Grant Institutions

– Diverse Agrifood Policy Organizations (AFDO, IAC, AEA, GMA/FPA, USDA, FDA)

– Agrifood Nanotechnology Experts from 14 NIRT-funded projects

– Public engagement experts in Risk Perception Mapping and nanotechnology education

I

F A

S

Why this Project & How We Got Here (1)

• MSU NIRT: Social/Ethical Dimensions of Agrifood Nanotechnology

– Lessons from Social Experience w/Biotech

– ‘Issues Landscape’ for Nanotechnology Standards

– What is Agrifood Nano: Applications, Governance, Participation

I

F A

S

CURRENT & EMERGING APPLICATIONS

InputSupply

Farming/Ranching

Processing

WholesaleRetail

At home

Transport

Smart NetworksTailored chemicals

RFID Devices: Traceability,Inventory Control, Checkout,

Customer Tracking(?)

Smart Fridge

Distributed Intelligence

Precision Farming

Smart PackagingNanofilters

Lowfat ice cream

I

F A

S

Why this Project & How We Got Here (1)

• Key Lessons (among others)

– “Agrifood Nanotechnology” (singular) is an oversimplification and potentially confusing from governance/participation perspectives.

– Participation is as much about educating policy-makers and technologists about the social and cultural contexts of public interactions with new technologies as it is educating lay publics about the science & technology underlying those innovations.

I

F A

S

Why this Project & How We Got Here (2)

• National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)– Federal R&D program enacted in 2003 to coordinate

multiagency efforts in nanoscale science, eng., & tech.– Presently 27 participating agencies, including USDA

• NNI 2007 Strategic Plan Observes– “Providing information to and seeking input from the

public will allow the government to make well-informed decisions and build trust among all stakeholders.”

– Understanding and incorporating public perceptions of nanotechnology, including its potential applications in [X] systems, is especially critical in this process.

I

F A

S

NNI & Public Engagement

• Public Participation and Nanotechnology Workshop, Arlington, VA, May 2006

• 175 participants from government, industry, media, NGO, academia – various disciplinary perspectives– ‘Policy Needs’ for participation

• Educate public about nanotechnology• Learn from public about potential nanotechnology impacts

– Approaches to participation• ‘Centralized’ – top-down, larger scale, highly coordinated,

etc.• ‘Decentralized’ – bottom-up, smaller scale, open-ended, etc.

– MSU Presentation on Extension as Engagement Platform

I

F A

S

Why Extension?

• Extension established by Smith-Lever Act (1914) to “…aid in diffusing… useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture…, and to encourage the application of same…”– Traditional model of tech transfer from technical experts to communities,

lay publics

• Existing Institutional Structure– Extensive institutional history/experience with local-level interactions

concerning new agrifood technologies; modify/tweak the wheel rather than re-invent it.

• Pervasive– All states and territories, Physical offices/staff in most counties

• Decentralized– Extension educators embedded in local community contexts, networks– Rapport, earned ‘trust’ (familiarity?); demonstrated competency and

responsibility

• Diversity of staff, clientele –demographic, geographic

I

F A

S

MSU NIRT Presentation:

Build Extension Capacity for…

• Knowledge of potential agrifood nano applications (tech transfer, ‘outreach,’ education per NNI mtg.)

– Workshop 1: “ESAN”

• Ethnographic Risk Perception Mapping (local knowledge systems transfer, ‘in-pull,’ policy-maker education per NNI, NIRT lessons)

– Workshop 2: Ethnographic Risk Perception Mapping, Participant-Observation

• Linking/integrating with agrifood policy organization needs (toward ‘socially responsive’ agrifood nanotechnology policies)

– Workshop 2 and beyond…

I

F A

S

Extension Project Description:

Conceptual Foundation• Builds upon and intended to complement psychometric studies of

nano risks

• “Putting People First” (Cernea) – fit technologies to people, e.g., international development literature

• “Co-productive approach” (Jasanoff)

• “Interests” (Hirschman) and “Worlds of Justification” (Boltanski & Thevenot)– e.g., “Stakeholders” reconsidered

• “Knowledges in Context” (Wynne; Purcell)

• “Risk & Rationality” (Shrader-Frechette)

• “Risk Perception Mapping” (Stoffle & Stone; Mairal; DOE)

• Cooperative Extension (Smith-Lever Act, 1914)– Tech Transfer and “Outreach”

– Stakeholder Knowledge Transfer, “Inpull” and Uptake

– Environmental Justice and “Participatory Equity Principle” (Stone)

I

F A

S

Extension Project Schematic

I

F A

S

Workshop 1: Train the Trainers in

APPLICATIONS

InputSupply

Farming/Ranching

Processing

WholesaleRetail

At home

Transport

Smart NetworksTailored chemicals

RFID Devices: Traceability,Inventory Control, Checkout,

Customer Tracking(?)

Smart Fridge

Distributed Intelligence

Precision Farming

Smart PackagingNanofilters

Lowfat ice cream

I

F A

S

Extension Project Schematic

I

F A

S

Workshop 2 – Toward “In-Pull”Train the Trainers in Cultural Context and

‘Local Knowledges’ in Public Engagement for Agrifood Nano: Lessons from Risk Perception

Mapping Studies

• Cultural Traditions and Fish Consumption Advisories

– ‘Mushrat’ & ‘Kukko’

• LLRW & Amish cultural dislocation: ‘unknown’ vs ‘known’

• LLRW & “Milksheds:” Demographic vs ‘behavioral’

• Buckminster Fuller, ‘Buckyballs,’ and Dymaxion Houses…

• ‘Informal’ Nano-Engagement: Of Cosmetologists and Appliance Salespersons and…

I

F A

S

Extension Project Schematic

I

F A

S

Workshop 2 (Cont’d):Agrifood Policy Organization

Needs• Integrate with key RPM variables to increase utility

– ‘Awareness’– Perceived applications– ‘Risk Perception Analogues’

• Similar in application, effects, personal/community impacts, etc.• RPM ‘Vectors’

• With whom in organization should info be shared

• What reporting formats will increase likelihood of information utilization, and in what preferred contexts

• What ‘translates’ – language, values, ideals of policy orgs

• How do we (i.e., MSU project staff and Extension educators & administrators) need to communicate to effectively meet org. needs

I

F A

S

Extension Project Schematic

I

F A

S

Project Goals, Anticipated/Desired

Outcomes• Heed the sociological lessons of what can happen “when people

don’t come first” – unnecessary financial cost, significant social disruption, and occasionally social rejection of emerging technologies (Cernea, Kottak).

• Use Extension to complement public understanding of agrifood nanoscience & tech with greater scientific understanding of the public conceptions of and interactions with these technologies.

• Inform/enhance socially responsive policies for agrifood nanotechnologies at national, state, and populations-specific levels (i.e., fit technologies to people rather than vice versa) (Uphoff, Chambers).

• Transform agrifood nanotechnology from a purely technical endeavor which is then ‘transferred’ to the general public to a socio-technical or ‘co-productive’ process in which local knowledge is systematically documented & transferred upstream to inform subsequent iterations of agrifood nanotechnologies & policies (Jasanoff).

I

F A

S

Future Directions?

• First things first…

• Adapt to other Extension-based programs of agencies involved in NNI– NOAA Sea Grant– USDA Forest Service– NIST National Manufacturing Extension

Program

I

F A

S

Your Thoughts and Comments

are Always Welcome

Dr. John V. StoneApplied Anthropologist

Associate Director & Senior Research ScientistInstitute for Food and Agricultural Standards

Berkey Hall #425-AMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, 48824

517-355-2384 (Office); 517-432-2856 (FAX)jvstone@msu.edu, http://ifas.msu.edu