Talking Risk

Review of April 2022 paper: 'COVID-19 Emergency Powers: The New Zealand State, Medical Capture & the Role of Strategic Ignorance.' Available as PDF on TalkingRisk.NZ or in chapter form on JRBruning.Substack.com The Emergency Powers paper proposes that the combination of rapid output of legislation and flawed policy processes produced deficient COVID-19 legislation that was never scientifically or democratically accountable. The use of narrowly formed modelling to justify strategies, were never balanced by scrutiny of the peer reviewed scientific literature. Laws that required that the public accepted a medical treatment in order to participate in economic life, continue to present grave ethical, legal and moral implications for human rights, and the resilience of democracies in times of crisis, in the years ahead.

Since March 2020 it was known that risk for severe COVID-19 was stratified to the aged & infirm & to those with multiple (multimorbid) health conditions. Since 2020 early treatments were designed to be taken at home to prevent viral replication; to boost the immune system & to reduce severe COVID-19 including inflammation & clotting. Access to early treatment in NZ without subsidy, will be out of reach for low income groups who are at higher risk of multimorbidity. Why has early treatment been ignored by the New Zealand government? In July 2022 the NZ government & media still limit advice to vaccinate, mask, test & isolate. Mandates for healthcare workers continue, for an mRNA gene therapy that cannot prevent transmission of infection; & for which over 1000 studies in the peer reviewed literature demonstrate harm. There is no evidence that the NZ government has been strategically & methodologically reviewing the peer reviewed literature over 2020-2022 to identify new knowledges relating to mRNA gene therapy safety & efficacy; to recognise risk by age & health status; & to survey treatments with a strong safety profile which prevent hospitalisation & death. Science policy & resultant legislation, like democracy, must conform to principles of transparency & accountability. Principles of administrative law infer & require that such work would be undertaken. Will a single, novel mRNA genetic therapy be mandated in the 'next' pandemic? JRBruning@Substack.com TalkingRisk.NZ

Rerecording of a paper presentation. The Australian Sociological Association Conference (TASA), November 2022, Melbourne Australia. Jodie Bruning. Abstract: SCIENCE FOR WHOM? Manufacturing social consent for government policies through the control of science production. For decades the science diplomacy community have emphasised the importance of evidence-based science and the role of the honest broker. This presumes that the science produced and presented equally represents the complexity of issues and risks at stake. However, I suggest, this is where the public-interest rift occurs, unarticulated by ‘honest brokers’. Science is a collection of social processes. Who funds the science, sets the scope, and declares the values, ultimately structures what is produced. Science is social and political, from its conception, through production, peer review and publication. This discussion highlights this public interest rift. Like democracy, science should have space and the production of science should be at ‘arm’s length’ from those with the political or financial interest in the outcome. Without a robust scientific community, risk of policy capture will be amplified in times of crisis. I discuss as a case study, the COVID-19 emergency, arguing that the New Zealand government failed to make a safe space for contested and uncomfortable knowledge. Narrow forms of science and directed data modelling shaped what was publicly known and considered politically legitimate. These processes effectively sabotaged the socio-political and scientific demosphere, establishing a troubling precedent for future public health emergencies. More writing can be found at JRBruning.Substack.com or TalkingRisk.NZ

Public funding for esearch & science that explores risk from science & technology as not equivalently matched the acceleration & release of release of manmade emissions/pollution into the environment. This work threatens large institutional interests, as it provides knowledge that might show harm, creating a public demand for regulation. This work is often underfunded, or simply not funded, because it is inevitably political. But without this important work, mankind cannot steward the emissions & pollution from Anthropogenic activities. As part of this presentation I draw on the 2022 paper by Persson et al - Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. The paper proposes that the unlimited & exponential production of novel entities place us outside Rockström & Steffen & colleagues' planetary boundaries framwework - simply because the extent of production & release of manmade technologies, called novel entities, which include chemicals and gene edited technologies, are beyond current capacity to monitor & conduct appropriate risk assessments. What are the implications for human & environmental health? www.TalkingRisk.NZ JRBruning.Substack.com

Sociologist J.R. Bruning discusses the gaps in policy, regulation & scientific research in New Zealand regarding persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic neonicotinoid pesticides (insecticides). www.TalkingRisk.NZ

February 2021 re-recording of abstract presentation by J.R. Bruning, at The Australian Sociological Association Conference, TASA, November 26, 2021. Thematic Group: Risk Societies Presentation: Innovation & Ignorance Discussion on Masters research project which analysed policy discourse, particularly relating to how institutional norms of innovation and excellence shape the decision-making of funding panels in health research. Research then explored the experiences of physical (basic) scientists in attempting to secure funding for health research. Key logics were identified that shepherded funding towards science that could be demonstrated as innovative, which displaced and downgraded non 'innovative' science. 'Innovation' is discussed. Interviews with institutional scientists demonstrated that scientific research exploring the environmental drivers of health and disease were frequently outside the 'innovation' scope defined by policy, and their funding proposals downgraded and unlikely to be funded. This research may shed some light on the drivers underpinning a 30 year pattern of underinvestment in science exploring the drivers of health and disease by nation-state science funding schemes. This form of science is dwarfed by public investment in biomedical research, which is directed towards producing biomedical applications. Link to TASA conference information: https://tasa.org.au/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=671860&module_id=357694 www.TalkingRisk.NZ