Dr Kate McCallum Millar

1
Science Communication Conference - May
2002Exploring issues raised by Bioremediation
Technologies Stakeholder dialogue and the use
of the Ethical Matrix

• Dr Kate McCallum Millar
• Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of
  Biosciences and
• Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisk, and
  Society (IGBiS)
• University of Nottingham

2
Biotechnology Debate and Stakeholder Engagement

• Biotechnology debate -
• Calls for new participatory tools
• Ensure effective, inclusive and balanced
  discussions
• Identify ethical and social issues raised by
  biotechnology development
• Engagement programmes need to be initiated at an
  early stage of the RTD process

3
Bioremediation Project BBSRC Public Affairs

• As part of BBSRC Public Affairs activities
  exploring ways to improve
• communication
• and engagement with stakeholders
• Commissioned One Year Study
• Examine use of Ethical Matrix
• Possible value in aiding the management of issues
  raised in RTD
• Bioremediation as a case study

4

• Part I
• Project Background

5
Bioremediation as a case study

• Bioremediation
• use of micro-organisms and plants to detect,
  degrade or remove environmental pollutants from
  soil, water or air
• Bioremediation as a case study
• early stage of development
• recent funding initiatives (LINK Programme)
• potentially raises a number of social and ethical
  issues

6
Bioremediation A Bugs Life!
.but dont forget the plants
7
Bioremediation Technologies

• Developments in bioremediation include
• Use of bacteria to detect pollution Biosensors
• Use of plants to mop-up or degrade pollutants
  Phytoremediation
• Use of micro-organisms to degrade pollutants
• e.g. Bioaugmentation
• Use of GM Phytoremediation or Bioaugmentation

8

• Part II
• Project
• Methodology

9
Project Methodology

• Series of Focus Groups conducted
• Map issues raised by the use of bioremediation
• Explore issues as defined stakeholder groups
• Contribution of Ethical Matrix
• Final Workshop
• Discuss data generated from the focus groups
• Explore issues as a mixed stakeholder group
• Contribution of Ethical Matrix

10
Project Methodology

• Focus Groups and Workshop
• FOCUS GROUP 1 NGO Group (n5)
• FOCUS GROUP 2 Industry and Regulator Group
  (n11)
• FOCUS GROUP 3 Public Group A (n8)
• FOCUS GROUP 4 Public Group B (n8)
• FOCUS GROUP 5 National Council of Women
  Group (n7)
• FINAL WORKSHOP Representatives from each focus
  group and additional participants (n12)

11
Project Methodology

• Focus Groups and Workshop
• Similar format used for each focus group
• Pre-meeting briefing documents
• Bioremediation and introduction to Ethical
  Matrix
• Presentation introducing the technology and the
  methodology to be used
• Followed by a series of discussion sessions
  defined by the methodology

12
Introduction to Ethical Matrix (EM)

• Ethical Matrix
• EM devised as an analytical tool for exploring
  the ethical dimensions of biotechnologies
• Developed by Prof Ben Mepham
• Ethical principles drawn from what is referred to
  as the common morality
• Acknowledged
• that within a pluralistic society there is a need
  for an ethical approach that reflects notion of
  the common morality
• Proposed by Beauchamp and Childress and applied
  in field of medical ethics

13
Introduction to Ethical Matrix (EM)

• EM encapsulates three main ethical traditions to
  ensure a comprehensive and coherent approach
• EM assesses biotechnologies in terms of respect
  (or lack of respect) for 3 ethical principles
• Principle of Autonomy- freedom
• Principle of Wellbeing - produce benefit reduce
  harm
• Principle of Justice - fairness or fair
  treatment
• Applied to defined interest (stakeholder) groups

14
Introduction to Ethical Matrix (EM)

• Bioethical Framework was developed to
• contribute to stakeholder understanding and
  increase transparency
• clarify relationship between scientific and
  ethical dimensions
• assist the identification of potential ethical
  impacts (positive and negative) and weighing of
  impacts

15
Ethical Matrix Bioremediation

• Interest groups potentially affected by the
  impacts of bioremediation
• Technology - Problem owners
• Users e.g. landowners, developers
• Affected - Site neighbours,
• Citizens local community
• Technology - Researchers, industry,
• Providers environmental consultants
• Environment - Wildlife, soil ecology,
• air quality

16
Ethical Matrix Bioremediation
17

• Part III
• Findings and Conclusions

18
Findings for the Focus Group Discussions

• Topics discussed included
• Specific issues and concerns raised by
  bioremediation
• for each interest group
• Issues of RTD process
• E.g. consent and engagement
• Issues of RTD management
• E.g. research trajectories/priorities

19
Focus Group Data

• Questioned the need to explore/invest in GM
  technology
• numerous, as yet unidentified, naturally
  occurring organisms could be harnessed (Industry
  and NGO)
• No intrinsic objections to the use of GM
  technologies
• majority wishing to explore the acceptability of
  each option on a case by case basis
• All of the groups explored
• the difficulties of trading off safety
  uncertainties, against the potential
  environmental benefits these technologies offer
• NGO group concerned
• industrial polluters continue to pollute, on the
  grounds that these biological methods could be
  applied to clean-up contamination at a later
  stage

20
Focus Group Data

• NCW highlighted the need to
• ensure a parallel assessment process moves
  alongside RTD programmes
• evaluate the life cycle of a technology
• identify which public bodies are responsible at
  various stages ensure that wider social and
  ethical issues are dealt with in a consistent
  manner
• Clear view of joined-up technology management
• Issues are addressed as the technologies develop
  rather than dealt with as end of pipe
  application issues

21
Use of the Ethical Matrix

• All participants evaluated EM and clarify their
  judgements -
• SWOT analysis
• Just over 85 felt the EM aided the discussions
• 12.7 qualified their positive comments
• 8.5 neutral view on use and 6.5 negative view
• All participants (NGO, NCW, Industry and
  Workshop)
• felt that it was important that the research
  councils are involved in stakeholder engagement
  programmes (14did not comment)
• Over 60of all participants commented on the
  value of the day, exercise or process

22
Conclusions

• Key Issues
• Specific areas of concern that can be
  incorporated into research programmes
• Issues that encourage collaboration across
  Council Research initiatives
• Responsibilities to ensure joined up governance
  of biotechnology development and application
• Concepts of need appear to modulate research
  acceptability
• Early engagement fosters a greater sense of
  ownership of technology and outcomes

23
Conclusions

• Potential benefits
• Targeted information to aid research planners
• Early identification of potential issues
• Valuable for those agencies that will deal with
  application of the technologies
• Stimulate debate within the wider RTD community
• Stimulates awareness of wider issues
• Brings together broad range of stakeholders
  encouraging closer links

24
Conclusions

• One aim of the Matrix is simply to serve as a
  check-list
• Beyond that more important aims
• to encourage reflection in the context of values
• clarifying ethical and scientific dimensions
• EM is one of a small number of possible
  approaches in a toolbox of emerging participatory
  strategies
• One of the few tools that defines an explicit
  framework
• May be restrictive but rather than hindering the
  process it may provide structure

25
Future Work

• Project Participants
• The importance of investment in the area of
  stakeholder engagement by BBSRC
• In part as a result of BBSRC sponsorship
• this work will be extended in an EU Fifth
  Framework collaborative project commencing in 2003

26
Acknowledgements

• Dr Paul Nathanail and Amy Barnes
• School of Chemical, Environmental
• and Mining Engineering (SChEME)
• Sandy Tomkins and Prof Ben Mepham
• Centre for Applied Bioethics
• School of Biosciences
• Dr Monica Winstanley and Simon Wilde
• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
• Research Council (BBSRC)
• All Focus Group and Workshop Participants