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.

On the website, OSHA describes their mission as to "assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance."

OSHA covers most private sector employers and their workers. They also cover some public sector employers and workers in the US and other territories under federal authority. Those districts include DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and other islands as well. 

Workers at state and local government agencies are not covered by federal OSHA, but have OSH Act protections if they work in states that have an OSHA-approved state program. OSHA also permits states and territories to develop plans that cover only public sector (state and local government) workers. In these cases, private sector workers and employers remain under federal OSHA jurisdiction.OSHA’s protection applies to all federal agencies and does not cover self-employed individuals.

OSHA issues workplace health and safety regulations. These regulations include limits on hazardous chemical exposure, employee access to hazard information, requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, and requirements to prevent falls and hazards from operating dangerous equipment.

For example, OSHA released information regarding Zika and how employers can guarantee safety and protection for their workers. They also provide standards for PPE and decontamination as well as safety. They've released many standards and protocols discussing this. 

OSHA provides more of a guideline for prevention and safety in the workplace, as opposed to reawction. They emphasize the responsibility of employers to provide a safe and assured workplace for their employees. 

OSHA was created with the Occupational Safe and Health Act of 1970 and is part of the US Department of Labor. The legislation was passed because the system of mass production used in the US encouraged the use of machinery, but there was nothing to protect workplace safety. For most employers, it was cheaper to replace a dead or injured worker than it was to introduce safety measures. Many states also enacted workers' compensation laws as labor unions began to become more popular. These laws discouraged employers from permitting unsafe workplaces. A chemical revolution also introduced chemical compounds into the workplace, which jeopardized the safety of workers. These events led to the creation of the legislation and OSHA, highlighting their primary mission.

The federal government funds OSHA.

OSHA is constantly releasing publications about new chemicals found in the workplace with risks and regulations that should be put in place. The archive on their website is vast with publications about anything ranging from Ebola, to Hand and power tools. 

Because this organization works primarily within workplaces, their goal to prevent disasters and emergencies provides them with an interesting outlook. Their focus on ensuring safety for workers gives them a proactive perspective as opposed to one that responds to disasters. 

They stress the importance of recordkeeping and how that has the ability to change the future outcomes of safety. I would imagine they stress it so intensely due to issues they had in the past. They also have the challenge of dealing with public sectors and workforces not in their jurisdiction. While they are helpful for those they cover, those they do not provide concern in that they can't protect the workers and avoid accidents and emergencies.