On the interconnected nature of risk and responsibility in the research and development of new and emerging technologies.

Risk analysis of new and emerging technologies requires innovative approaches that are agile, exploratory, and can accommodate broad stakeholder engagement and perspectives. Existing theories of risk governance and responsible innovation suggest that operationalizing guiding principles for engagement such as inclusion and reflection may provide a useful approach to the risk analysis of these technologies. Yet, methodologies to systematically assess how we might operationalize such guiding principles in risk analysis are limited in existing risk research. We contribute to filling this gap by demonstrating a practical methodology for examining and documenting how research and development (R&D) professionals operationalize inclusion and reflection in risk analysis and what value this provides to risk analysis in the R&D context. We use the Australian nanotechnology R&D sector as our case study, interviewing 28 experts to examine how R&D professionals have operationalized inclusion and reflection into their risk analysis practices, generating three findings. First, we describe how our research design enables the successful translation of theory into a methodology that supports an empirical assessment of the integration of these guiding principles into risk analysis practice. Second, we argue that successfully and systematically integrating inclusion and reflection in risk analysis fosters a wider understanding and identification of risk through the activation of multi-actor and multi-institutional stakeholder engagement processes. Third, we outline how this research depicts the outward-facing and introspective nature of risk analysis.

Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia.

There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients' privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.

Power, perspective, and privilege: The challenge of translating stakeholder theory from business management to environmental and natural resource management.

Stakeholder analysis and engagement is a central tenet for understanding and solving sustainability challenges, and is applied widely in environmental and natural resource management (ENRM). The practice in ENRM follows translation of stakeholder theory from its origins in business management to the sustainability sector. In this analytical essay we explore key concepts in ENRM research and practice to examine complexities that have accompanied this translation to ENRM. In particular, we consider the centrality of stakeholders' landscape perspectives in defining their stake in ENRM issues, and through this lens examine the limitations that are inherent in the classic 'hub-and-spoke' model of stakeholder analysis that is the theoretical underpinning for ENRM stakeholder analysis and engagement practice. We argue that unlike the traditional business context where both power and perspective are centred on the business entity that then defines other stakeholders in reference to itself, in ENRM, stakeholder relations are centred on an ENRM issue, typically a landscape or the implications of policy change on a landscape. As a consequence, decision-making power is decentred onto one of several stakeholders; often a government or other high power entity, implicitly conferring privilege to those powerful stakeholders' landscape perspectives over those held by low power stakeholders. We conclude with priorities for foregrounding power and explicating landscape perspectives to identify privilege in ENRM. We direct these insights especially to those ENRM actors who have the dual roles of adjudicator and privileged stakeholder such that they do not inadvertently perpetuate power imbalances through the privilege of aligning their decision-making power with their landscape perspectives.

Examining the role of carbon capture and storage through an ethical lens.

The risk posed by anthropogenic climate change is generally accepted, and the challenge we face to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a tolerable limit cannot be underestimated. Reducing GHG emissions can be achieved either by producing less GHG to begin with or by emitting less GHG into the atmosphere. One carbon mitigation technology with large potential for capturing carbon dioxide at the point source of emissions is carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the merits of CCS have been questioned, both on practical and ethical grounds. While the practical concerns have already received substantial attention, the ethical concerns still demand further consideration. This article aims to respond to this deficit by reviewing the critical ethical challenges raised by CCS as a possible tool in a climate mitigation strategy and argues that the urgency stemming from climate change underpins many of the concerns raised by CCS.