Search

Emerging technologies are increasingly being sought as interventions to intractable environmental and public health issues that promise to intensify on our warming planet. Genetically engineered mosquitoes could curb the impacts of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria and dengue. Solar geoengineering could use cloud thinning or aerosol scattering to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Adequate regulatory and governance mechanisms do not yet exist for these technologies, the impacts of which span international boundaries, and have the power to irreversibly alter environments. There is wide recognition from national and international bodies that decision-making processes surrounding these technologies must engage local and Indigenous communities whose lands and resources would be impacted by their trial and deployment. In response, public, community, and stakeholder “engagement” has taken center stage in the discourse on emerging environmental technology governance. Scientists and technologists are now compelled to engage publics and communities, as they recognize that some form of engagement or authorization will be requisite to the application of their technologies outside the laboratory. The language of participatory engagement abounds in scientific and governance literature on environmental technologies. These texts espouse the importance of co-design, relationship-building, shared decision-making, and mutual learning, and recognize the uneven power relations in which environmental decisions have historically been made. Yet, emergent practices of engagement leave much to be desired in terms of realizing their stated aspirations. Deficit model approaches frame publics and communities primarily as “lay people” needing to be educated before weighing in on decisions. In my fieldwork on one Pacific island where genetically modified mosquitoes are being considered for endangered bird conservation, I observed a focus group in a market research firm in which local and Indigenous residents were tested on their knowledge of invasive species biology and asked to rank radio advertisements and slogans about the modified mosquitoes. The conflation of engagement with marketing strategies and public relations campaigns prioritize the management of public perception over genuine dialogue or mutual learning. In theory, all the interest in engagement promises to open up meaningful possibilities for local and Indigenous communities to realize their rights to self-determination. In practice, strategic and instrumental approaches instead subdue opposition and manufacture consent. Legal mechanisms are needed to codify Indigenous rights in decision-making processes. Alternative approaches are needed that widen the focus beyond a single technofix to let communities define environmental challenges and collectively imagine solutions. Opposition should be read not as a barrier but as a generative site for inquiry, as often it is not the technology itself being refused but the exclusionary processes that surround its use. The most just solutions are likely to emerge from those very refusals. 

Taitingfong, Riley. 2023. "It’s all talk: how community engagement is failing in environmental technology governance." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

The central argument is that healthcare professionals are not trained well enough in mentally/ emotionally handling patient relationships when providing end-of-life care for terminal/ chronic illnesses.

The narrative is sustained through Atul Gawande's experience and research into improving his end-of-life care for his own patients by meeting with other healthcare professionals (oncologists, palliative care experts and surgeons), and analyzing his actions with his father. The film has strong emotional appeal, as loss of loved ones is a common experience, and difficult for all parties involved. 

Scientific info isn't really in depth (disease processes aren't talked about) mostly just psycho-social aspects discussed. 

The stakeholders are Dr. Atul Gawande, other healthcare professionals, and the patients with terminal illnesses. They have to decide what the patient's priorities are, treatment options, and basically how much time and quality of life patients are willing to trade for extended years to live. Is the treatment making the patient worse or better? Doctors have to put themselves in a position of vulnerability by personally getting to know their patients, and deal with the guilt and blame if their treatments aren't successful or what they had said to the patient's family.

Emergency responders not portrayed in the film; only medical professionals involved in long-term patient care are addressed. 

Emergency responders are not portrayed in this film. This film focuses on long term care and the ethics of dealing with death, hospice, and gravely ill patients.

In this film, three groups of stakeholders are portrayed; doctors, patients, and mortality. The doctors depicted fight a loosing battle against aging, death, and terminal illness like cancer. They need to come to terms with the fact that they can't save everyone and they need to honor their patients wishes for how they want to conduct the end of their lives. The patients need to accept their impending death with the assistance of their doctors and advocate for how they want to conduct the end of their lives. And mortality is an object which is immaterial but ever present, and both doctors and patients need to learn how to grasp with it.

The narrative is sustained through emotional stories of end of life care from both the physician and patient perspectives performed by both Dr. Atul Gawande and by other healthcare professionals such as oncologists, palliative care experts, other surgeons. The scientific background of end of life care isn't really discussed in detail, as this film focuses more on the social and emotional aspects of this topic.

The central argument of the film is that healthcare professionals are for the most part believe that they can defeat most diseases, and that they consider not being able to fix something a failure on their part. As such, they are not trained well in handling palliative and end-of-life care, prioritizing the patients wishes and dignity over putting up a fight against the disease.

I found parts of the film where the narrator discusses his father to be particularly compelling, because the treatment course that the father took directly influenced how the narrator sees pallative and end of life care and provided a lense from which to look at the rest of the film.