An official website of the United States government
Recommender systems are usually designed by engineers, researchers, designers, and other members of development teams. These systems are then evaluated based on goals set by the aforementioned teams and other business units of the platforms operating the recommender systems. This design approach emphasizes the designers’ vision for how the system can best serve the interests of users, providers, businesses, and other stakeholders. Although designers may be well-informed about user needs through user experience and market research, they are still the arbiters of the system’s design and evaluation, with other stakeholders’ interests less emphasized in user-centered design and evaluation. When extended to recommender systems for social good, this approach results in systems that reflect the social objectives as envisioned by the designers and evaluated as the designers understand them. Instead, social goals and operationalizations should be developed through participatory and democratic processes that are accountable to their stakeholders. We argue that recommender systems aimed at improving social good should be designedbyandwith, not justfor, the people who will experience their benefits and harms. That is, they should be designed in collaboration with their users, creators, and other stakeholders as full co-designers, not only as user study participants.
more »
« less
The need for communication between researchers and policymakers for the deployment of bioengineered carbon capture and sequestration crops
Bioengineered/genome-edited carbon capture and sequestration (BE/GEd-CCS) crops are being developed to mitigate climate change. This paper explores how technology, regulation, funding, and social implications, could shape the development and deployment of these crops. We conclude that some of the technological efforts to create BE/GEd-CCS crops may work. Still, stakeholders must agree on generally accepted methods of measuring how much carbon is captured in the soil and its value. The regulatory space for BE/GEd-CCS crops remains fluid until the first crops are reviewed. BE/GEd-CCS crops have received considerable initial funding and may benefit financially more from other federal programs and voluntary carbon markets. BE/GEd-CCS crops may continue perpetuating social equity concerns about agricultural biotechnology due to a lack of oversight. We argue that stakeholders need to pursue a multidisciplinary view of BE/GEd-CCS crops that draw in varying perspectives for effective development and deployment. Communication is needed between researchers and policymakers involved in either developing BE/GEd-CCS crops or developing voluntary carbon markets. We argue for the start of a conversation both across disciplines and between researchers and policymakers about the development and deployment of BE/GEd-CCS crops.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1828820
- PAR ID:
- 10549191
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
- Volume:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 2571-581X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Economic experiments have emerged as a powerful tool for agricultural policy evaluations. In this perspective, we argue that involving stakeholders in the design of economic experiments is critical to satisfy mandates for evidence-based policies and encourage policymakers' usage of experimental results. To identify advantages and disadvantages of involving stakeholders when designing experiments, we synthesize observations from six experiments in Europe and North America. In these experiments, the primary advantage was the ability to learn within realistic decision environments and thus make relevant policy recommendations. Disadvantages include complicated implementation and constraints on treatment design. We compile 12 recommendations for researchers.more » « less
-
Advances in engineering biology, together with growing interest and investment in supporting a bio-based economy in the US, are fueling research and development efforts into genetically engineering organisms for all kinds of different applications. While many of these applications involve using genetically engineered microorganisms in contained, bioreactor-like environments, there is also increasing interest in designing organisms (microbes, plants, insects, animals) for release and deployment in the open environments. This includes genetically modified crops, as well as direct-to-consumer probiotics and organisms designed for environmental remediation. Historically, examples of genetically engineered organisms released in open environments in the US remain limited, aside from GM crops. Industry enthusiasm for releasing genetically engineered microorganisms in particular waned at least partly in response to public controversy surrounding the field testing of Frostban “ice-minus” bacteria on strawberry crops in 1987. Development of living engineered products, together with publicly funded research on environmental transport and fate of engineered microorganisms in open environments, stalled. As a result, our approach to managing engineered microorganisms over the past 40 years has largely defaulted to the biosafety framework for genetic engineering in laboratory contexts, which emerged from the storied 1975 Asilomar meeting. This biosafety framework focuses on technological containment, a framing that prioritizes separation between genetically engineered organisms and the wider world. In this report, we argue that technological containment is insufficient for robust discussion and evaluation of genetically engineered organisms in open, complex environments. We introduce and make the case for a broader lens—which we call social containment—to be included alongside discussions of technological containment. Social containment directs our attention to how the cultural, environmental and political context around a genetically engineered organism (the sociotechnical system) is held together or challenged through its development and commercialization process. In this report, we use the lens of social containment to tell the stories of 11 genetically engineered organisms designed for deliberate release in the US. The cases cover historical and contemporary examples, genetically engineered microbes, plants and animals, and different application contexts. Through these stories, we show how technological, social, economic, legal, spatiotemporal and environmental considerations interact to smooth or disrupt the development process. We argue that this more holistic approach to understanding the relationships between genetically engineered organisms and the world is important in the context of recent, renewed interest in pursuing deliberate release applications. High-level findings emerging across the case studies include: 1) Development and commercialization pathways can look very different across genetically engineered organisms. There isn’t one, single factor that systematically emerges as the most important in determining the fate of a product. Some products have faced significant disruption in their developmental trajectories from different combinations of factors, while others have been more smoothly managed. Across the case studies, we identify factors that can work together to enable or constrain product trajectories. 2) The presence or absence of explicit, technological biocontainment strategies is not a reliable indicator of a successful product. Arguably, the absence of engineered biocontainment has resulted in more successful commercializations across our case studies than products with genetic biocontainment strategies engineered into them. 3) Public and stakeholder views on genetically engineered organisms are highly context-specific. We observe that public trust varies substantially across the case studies in this report, and should not necessarily be seen as a disruptive factor. Sensitivity to existing cultural norms and power dynamics is a key part of successful product development. Through this set of stories, we hope to open up ways for researchers and policy practitioners to think about containment as more than a simple technological concern. We encourage others to use our proposed framework to study their own genetically engineered organisms of interest—historical or contemporary, US-based or international—and we invite reflection on the variety of technological AND social processes by which genetically engineered organisms are controlled and managed in our society.more » « less
-
This article explores the new developments and challenges of agricultural Gene Editing (GED) regulation in primarily nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. As Gene Editing technology develops, Latin America and the Caribbean regulatory regimes struggle to keep pace. Developers and regulators face challenges such as consumer perceptions, intellectual property, R&D funding (private and public), training, environmental and social impact, and access to domestic and international markets. Some Latin America and the Caribbean countries (e.g., Argentina) interpret existing legislation to promulgate regulations for biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), while others (e.g., Brazil and Honduras) have specific legislation for Genetically Modified Organisms. In both those cases, often a case-by-case approach is chosen to determine whether a Gene Editing organism is subject to Genetically Modified Organisms regulations or not. Other countries such as Peru have opted to ban the technology due to its perceived resemblance to transgenic Genetically Modified Organisms. After presenting the regulatory landscape for agricultural Gene Editing in Latin America and the Caribbean, this article addresses some of the differences and similarities across the region. Some countries have had more foresight and have dedicated resources to increase capacity and develop regulations (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico before 2018) while others struggle with bureaucratic limitations and partisanship of policymaking (e.g., Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico after 2018). We propose that the differences and similarities between these regulatory regimes have emerged in part as a result of policy entrepreneurs (influential individuals actively involved in policy making) taking advantage of policy windows (opportunities for shaping policy and regulation). The third and remaining sections of this study discuss our main findings. Based on 41 semi structured interviews with regulators, scientists, product developers, NGOs and activists, we arrived at three main findings. First, there seems to be a consensus among most regulators interviewed that having harmonized regimes is a positive step to facilitate product development and deployment, leading to commercialization. Second, reducing bureaucracy (e.g., paper work) and increasing flexibility in regulation go hand in hand to expedite the acquisition of key lab materials required by developers in countries with less robust regimes such as Peru and Bolivia. Finally, developing public and private partnerships, fostering transparency, and increasing the involvement of marginalized groups may increase the legitimacy of Gene Editing regulation.more » « less
-
Active communication between researchers and society is necessary for the scientific community's involvement in developing science-based policies. This need is recognized by governmental and funding agencies that compel scientists to increase their public engagement and disseminate research findings in an accessible fashion. Storytelling techniques can help convey science by engaging people's imagination and emotions. Yet, many researchers are uncertain about how to approach scientific storytelling, or feel they lack the tools to undertake it. Here we explore some of the techniques intrinsic to crafting scientific narratives, as well as the reasons why scientific storytelling may be an optimal way of communicating research to nonspecialists. We also point out current communication gaps between science and society, particularly in the context of neurodiverse audiences and those that include neurological and psychiatric patients. Present shortcomings may turn into areas of synergy with the potential to link neuroscience education, research, and advocacy.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1329123
