Workshop Outcomes – personal reflection
pieces from workshop participants
Results of Participant Feedback on Safety First Workshop
Question: What
worked well for you during the workshop?
a. Broad perspectives of speakers, coming from several
disciplines
b. Interactive
breakout groups
c. Facilitator’s
style
○
a. Small group
discussion.
b. The presentation format.
○
The organizers brought together a very diverse group of
participants—lawyers and historians were especially good contributors; also
those involved in policy development and NGOs.
The inclusion of a few more hard-core scientists would have spiced up
the discussions.
○
Very well organized in terms of use of our time; good
opportunities to get to know fellow participants.
○
a. Great
setting,
b. Great dynamics
(monitoring, microphones).
c. Great conference
folder.
○
The dialogue between a diverse set of speaker and
audience. Excellent selections.
○
Everything worked very well for me as a print media
person. Access was excellent. It was a
very well designed intentional community for three days. Well planned, well
received, folks had great opportunity to do well. It reminded me of the best conferences I’ve
ever attended.
○
Very open discussion—good.
Surprised at employing a moderator—it worked well; I haven’t really seen
that before. Really liked the personal perspectives worksheet.
Introduction to “safety science” and history before biotech
ever brought up and we were asked to apply safety concepts to issue at
hand. Very “organic” process.
○
Lots of discussion and questions and answers.
○
a. Cross-disciplinary
make-up of participants
b. The organization.
○
Design is excellent—facilitates thought, reflection, and
good discussion. Great facilitation. Format was perfect.
○
The small groups actually needed more time to go through the
three questions, despite the extension of lunch. The discussion questions were excellent and
so prompted a rigorous discussion.
○
The participatory workshop was a great way to get everyone
involved.
○
A lot of great information on the first day. Final panel of first day—interesting, but
didn’t really address question.
○
The discussions were excellent, and were well managed to
ensure broad participation.
○
a. Hearing the
different opinions.
b. The range of
participants.
c. International
perspective.
○
The positive tone, non-aggressive attitudes. Openness.
○
a. My ergonomically
correct chair.
b. Workshop
design/conference design
c. Brian’s
facilitation—his strategy was excellent and his tactics outstanding
d. My breakout group
(orange) came together well, my moderator was very good.
○
Atmosphere; organization; the quality/consistency of the
conference’s package; the quality of the speakers; the good motivation (a merit
of the facilitator and organizers) achieved by the audience.
○
a. Group discussion
on second day helped pull together the ideas which were presented the first
day.
b. Excellent range of
ideas/representatives presented, new perspectives on the issue.
○
The allocation between presentation time and Q&A session
time was a very effective method of first framing the issues and then exploring
the scope and nuances of the issues. The
panels had sufficient diversity to cover issues from varied perspectives.
○
Very interesting!! I especially liked that the workshop did
not put too much time on the present scientific controversy around GMOs, but lifted the discussion up to a higher level.
○
a. Hearing different
“stories” from disciplines, experience.
b. The beginning of
comparative evaluation: “what is the GMO ‘industry?’” Have we seen something like this before
and/or what have we learned?
○
Interdisciplinary approach worked very well.
○
Debate was more open than I thought.
○
Panelist presentations were valuable, as were the Q&A
sessions, although the Q&A sessions were always too short. Saturday morning discussions were especially
informative.
○
It was a pleasant surprise to have food that
was provided and prepared in a manner consistent with the principles you
articulate.
○○○
__________________________________________
Question: How
would you improve workshops like this in the future?
a. Longer time for
breakout groups, less time for hearing from organizers about issues (much was repetitive), although what
was said was important.
b. We needed to
evaluate the current system for biotechnology oversight in the context
of safety first and then identify specific examples of improvements—many
safety first elements are in current system, many are not or are not
adequate. But there was little
substantial discussion of this comparison.
○
a. Open it to the
public.
b. More open
discussion, some way to avoid the mic.
c. Generate a summary
of what we did her and have a press release to let folks know what is being
discussed.
d. Perhaps have a
goal of generating some statements, goals that would culminate the conference.
○
The small-group discussions were especially beneficial. I might reduce the number/length of large
group discussions in favor of al least one additional small-group session.
○
A little more room for comments to follow on one another;
fewer breaks in good discussions.
○
Like to hear more from the biotech end (Monsanto,
etc.) though J. Wolt and others were insightful.
○
No good ideas.
Perhaps having the dinner after Day 1. I had to leave that first evening
but I suspect many folks may have left before the dinner as well.
○
Repeat this effort with continued offers for all attendees
to share their experience, knowledge, and histories. Repetition. Designed inclusiveness,
understanding leadership. Real poetry
from a great dynamic mediator poet.
○
To improve such a workshop I would add an example that can
be worked through (certainly it would be difficult and time consuming for this
topic). I really like the theory and a
discussion of process is necessary, but adding an example for content and context
may help people focus.
○
Hand-outs to participants ahead of workshop so they could be
read to prepare-- particularly information directly related to safety models
and the ISEES draft plan.
○
Have it be open to the public; include international
perspectives.
○
a. Not at all.
b. Get a policy
person to give us a GMO policy map talk as a context setter.
○
a. More time for
dialogue.
b. More focused
information on systems theory, holistic perspectives; longer contexts in which
these discussions occur, e.g. public policy in the US is for cheap food—how
does this impact the entire discussion
1.
What is the role of choice (consumer, producers/farmers, species) in
Safety First discussions?
2.
How does this relate to labeling issues?
3.
Farmers should be involved in the dialogue.
○
If I had received the written materials a week prior to the
workshop, I could have responded better to the Safety First framework. I would next deal with Safety First on a case
history basis, both for GE approvals and for broader technology options
assessment.
○
The applicability of Safety First historical lessons to GE
will depend on the ability of a wide range of participants and on the
willingness to engage the liability issue as a framework, rather than as an end
of pipeline consequence of design or implementation of a GE product or process.
○
Integrate exercises that have people up and moving around.
○
a. Questions to panel
were often irrelevant, off-topic, personal statements— moderator could have
made it clear he would only accept clarifying questions related to
presentation—cut off such out-of-place remarks.
b. Stu Hann—told us the same four
points—four times—not appropriate wrap-up.
Made me angry for wasting my time.
c. Wrap up too long
on Day Two as well.
○
Encourage a wider range of participation, especially by
representatives of sectors (other than plants) of the biotech industry not
present here (e.g. aquatic, microbial, trees.)
○
More small group time, perhaps provide targets for
discussion (?), farmers.
○
Include economists, insurance risk managers, psychologists
to get greater input into addressing risk assessment.
○
a. Make it
longer—four days.
b. Continue attempts
to get more industry (product developers and product commercializers)
representatives to future sessions.
c. Continue efforts to
get more representatives from developing countries.
d. Mechanical
detail: For “key messages” feedback
packet when you have multiple breakout groups:
Add check boxes to indicate “which color dot” the writer’s group
was. For each breakout group, block key
messages.
○
a. Distribute
participants’ list up front
b. Involve concerned
government officials of the highest possible level: a lot of tasks will be given to government in
the adoption of the Safety First approach. Therefore, involving them since the
beginning will be a very positive move.
○
a. First day should
have ended at 5pm—exhaustion of group by that time.
b. Writing down the
“Key messages—blue paper” seemed like overload, although I understand the value
it would have for you.
○
Although extraordinarily difficult to do, it would help if
discussions could avoid or limit exploration of the exceptions and concentrate
on the “bell curve” area. Exceptions are best discussed later during the
evolutionary process.
○
Longer time for discussion in the groups. The dinner in the “middle” of the workshop—a
lot of people were leaving the last evening.
○
I was ready for more task specific help, such as the time we
spent with the Safety First team.
○
Shorten first day.
More industry involvement.
Especially regulatory process for new kinds of drugs, pesticides.
○
Work done is important information that should be
documented, with follow-up, continuity, make cumulative.
○
Attempt to come to some decision on what specifically needs
to be done in the future.
○○○
___________________________________________
Question: What
is one thing you learned at the workshop that you will share with others?
Importance of learning from other fields to improve GEO
oversight.
○
The need to establish an international, industry wide set of
safety objectives.
○
The small-group discussions were especially beneficial. I might reduce the number/length of large
group discussions in favor of al least one additional small-group session.
○
The regulatory process (monitor and enforcement) practices
are inconsistent at best in the United States to deal with GMOs. Internationally—the situation is worse. This compounds a problem when released
can no be recalled.
○
That strict liability is unlikely to provide an
incentive for stronger safety evaluations.
○
It’s possible to fix this GE food problem before it gets any
worse. This group together has each and
every ingredient to change the present BAD results.
○
The history of a movement/issue is a great starting point to
inform current activity/policy. Also,
looking at other industries is a great way to “think out of the box.”
○
The concept of “safety first” and the lessons learned and
the structures used as examples.
○
Historical perspectives.
○
GMOs are happening and they are
not safe, nor likely to be.
○
The need for informed and honest dialogue between the
stakeholders is key to any progress on these issues.
○
People with widely divergent perspectives can reason
together.
○
The applicability of Safety First historical lessons to GE
will depend on the ability of a wide range of participants and on the
willingness to engage the liability issue is a framework, rather than as an end
of pipeline consequence of design or implementation of a GE product or process.
○
That transparency and openness are key factors in initiating
an honest movement in biotech paradigms.
○
Possible application as a whole new paradigm, safety first.
○
The rampant spread of GMOs has
already occurred without public input.
○
a. Hazards are
broader than chemical and physical systems that influence human food and
environment.
b. There are GMO concerns that must be considered by those
who currently reject or ignore them.
c. Social concerns
and impact need to be considered.
○
d. Chicanery of GMO
companies and biochemists during last 18 years as they defeated adequate and
effective regulation (from Sunday.)
e. GMO products may
not be subject to strict liabililty.
○
The notion of establishing safety standards up front, before
starting product development.
○
The GMO debate is a system design problem.
○
Dr. David Andow’s observation that
“when knowledge is limiting, the rule of thumb rules.”
○
The “umbrella” thought that Safety First is! The involvement of other scientific
disciplines—aircraft system engineers, historians, etc.
○
The nuclear regulatory case and what we can learn from that
for GMOs.
○
There is enormous dissatisfaction with the current
regulatory system among all stakeholders.
○
We need to work harder to include public input in decisions.
○○○
___________________________________________
Question: Please
rate the workshop on a scale of 0-10 (0
= terrible, 5 = okay, 10 = excellent).
Briefly, why did you give it this rating?
(7 & 8) Excellent
energy in the group and intriguing ideas but key features missing [from my
perspective (see item #2)].
○
(8) In many ways I
felt this was one of the best run conferences I’ve been to (logistics were
sweet), but I felt the objectives were a little unclear at the end.
○
(9)
○
(10) I thought it was
fantastic.
○
(10) Everything went smoothly
(great, diverse intelligent crew!)
○
(9 & 10)
Informative from a wide variety of perspectives. Current;
important.
○
(10) Because I’ve
worked on this issue from many different angle, attending 600+ workshops,
conferences, seminars, individual meetings.
○
(9) Great mix of people—even more would be even
better, e.g. senators/state representatives/students/industry
executives/educators/and many more people from outside of U.S./E.U.
○
(10) Extremely well designed for learning and
discussion. Comfortable.
○
(9) It was seeking ideas and not trying to push
an agenda.
○
(10) Because there was really nothing better that
could be done.
○
(8) Well organized; thought provoking; not long
enough!
○
(10) Lively, productive discussions. Open.
○
(9) The presentations were mostly relevant to the
theme and purpose of the meeting.
Discussion groups mostly responded and offer creatively to the workshop
questions.
○
(8) I thought it was great but like anything
else, can always be used to look back on and see where improvements are needed.
○
(8) Very interesting presentations on Day
One. We can definitely learn from
history.
○
(9) Excellent discussion—not perfect because of
unequal representation (lots of academics, few biotech industry types.)
○
(7) It was educational.
○
(8) See above.
○
(9) It was good; my
impatience to get going with developing Safety First led me to want it to go
faster.
○
(9) Overall, an excellent conference.
○
(8 & 9) Great workshop, good variety of
perspectives. First day long, although
interesting, but to make it a “9,” keep entire day to no more than 8 hours.
○
(7) The workshop provided me with useful insights
for my field. But I don not work in
genetic engineering or with GMOs. Thus, much of the discussion, while
interesting, was not relevant to my field.
○
(8) I would have given it a “10” if we had had
better time for discussion in the groups.
○
(8) As a newcomer, I don’t have the ability to
compare it to other conferences on GMOs. It appears to be a very good balance between
content and process with open dialogue.
○
(9) Well organized, good topics. Good speakers.
○
(8)
○
(8) Excellent topic and format, but need more
government participation.
○○○
___________________________________________
Question: Other
comments on the workshop?
Overall,
this workshop was very worthwhile. Great
Job.
○
It
seems to me that perhaps this is reactionary and we may be playing
catch-up. Perhaps safety first in
regards to GMOs needs to look at what is coming and
establish safety objectives for these products.
○
Thanks!
○
I think the size of group and mix was just right, though
even more diversity would have been great, too.
○
Thank you!
○
a. I think it would
have been good to have some agency regulators (EPA, USDA) represented to share
their perspectives. I would also have
liked to hear from GMO opponents from Europe, in a case-study manner, as per
the 2 “grim reapers” who spoke of Pb and VC. Why is Europe so much more cautious, and how
does their approach to safety issues differ, if at all, from the U.S.
b. Also, I think the
manner in which the modern media covers the issue and portrays problems will
be/is an important difference in regard to historical abuses of safety issues
by industry. A media
representative at a high level would have been a valuable person since they are
the filter through which the public is screened.
○
This “one” was the first to put both/many sides in one room
with community well-being as the goal.
○
I’d be interested in hearing ISEES staff speak a bit
more. Where did this topic come
from? How have ISEES considered it prior
to this workshop?
○
Excellent food—support local restaurants.
○
The facilitation was brilliant. A paper on alternatives to GMOs was missing.
○
I’m worried about the follow-up aspects of this work—how
will this be done? What will the opportunities for future dialogues be?
○
Good food.
○
I would agree that other categories of participants should
be included: farmers, investors and/or biotech bankers, food processors and
retailers.
○
Resultant discussion too abstract. I would have liked to have seen a more
concrete focus in the end—some real, well-defined process.
○
Glad you did it.
○
Am looking forward to see the impact.
○
Thank you!
○
Great idea and process.
Innovative approaches to bring the stakeholders together to move the momentum
towards a new paradigm in design, and consultation and development. Brian did a superb job as usual—very positive
energy.
○
The execution of the workshop was superb. Events flowed smoothly and I had a great
awareness of how each step fit in the overall workshop.
○
Keep on! The idea is
great!
○
Needs case studies of actual biotech regulation.
○
Need to write workshop thoughts on big piece of paper. Develop consensus, more task
oriented. You compared biotech
foods to other technology, but not to more related technologies like dietary
supplements, drugs, and agricultural biotech vs. medical biotech. When does a food become a drug? The distinctions are blurring. More legal understanding on patent laws,
regulations, and food and drug laws.
***
a. In talking with
[another participant], he brought up the very close relationship between
bioengineering, bioterrorism, and biowarfare. His perspective was something along the lines
of what Mark Wheelis might have presented. [He] pointed out that it may be the
possibilities or realties of bioterrorism, and biowarfare that ultimately lead to close scrutiny and
regulation of the agricultural biotech industry.
b. In the same
conversation, the possibility not just of strict liability but of personal
liability was brought up. That is, if
every scientist were held personally responsible and liable for the constructs
he/she created, then scientists might act more responsibly.
c. In a different
conversation, the need for a paradigm shift in teaching was mentioned. Many (most) students who learn bioengineering
techniques know very little or nothing about ecology, behavior, ethics, and
this prevents them from considering the consequences of their actions in a
larger context. The issue of ethics was
brought up repeatedly, as was the failure of current institutions of higher
learning to adequately prepare students for complex decision-making.
d. The issue of the
somewhat artificial separation of “human health effects” from “environmental
effects” was brought up. Environmental
effects ultimately ARE human health effects, and should be considered so
(though this is apparently prohibited under international treaties.)
***
It was a pleasant surprise to have food that was provided and prepared
in a manner consistent with the principles you articulate.