Thursday 16 – Friday 17 September 2010

Location: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles Oxford OX1 3JS

Registration: The conference is not yet open for registration.

Speakers

• Professor Patrick Dunleavy, London School of Economics
• Professor Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan
• Professor Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Director of the Information + Innovation Policy Research Centre

Abstract

Rationale

The Internet is now the most important international medium of communication and information exchange, involving citizens, firms, governments, political parties and NGOs, and bringing with it new practices, norms and structures. The societal shift enabled by the Internet is impacting upon public policy in all sectors, requiring rigorous empirical investigation, theoretical development and methodological innovation across academic disciplines.

In short, the Internet drives social change, requiring a policy response – and policy organizations of all kinds use the Internet to formulate and implement that response. Analysis of these two trends requires taking advantage of the new evidence generated by the Internet and the development of methods from a range of disciplinary perspectives.

Programme

This is the first academic conference to subject the relationship between the Internet, Politics and Policy to multi-disciplinary scrutiny. The conference will be organised in twin tracks:

• Papers in the Politics track will consider the use of the Internet by political organizations, examining the impact on policy of (for example) online interest group activity and political mobilization, e-voting, political parties and campaigning and e-government.
• Papers in the Policy track will look at policy responses to Internet-driven social change, including e-health, on-line education, cybercrime, security, privacy and digital inclusion.
• These two areas are intertwined, so Plenary sessions will merge these tracks, investigating the intersection of policy and politics and the Internet.

Call for Papers

We welcome papers reporting on innovative research into any aspect of the impact of the Internet on public policy and / or politics. We particularly welcome papers that report novel results or methodological approaches, such as advanced analysis of online policy networks, modelling of real-time transactional data or internet-based experiments.

Perspectives from any academic discipline are welcomed, particularly: political science, economics, law, sociology, information science, communications, philosophy, computer science, psychology, management, geography and medicine.

Please submit a 500-word outline in the first instance. All outlines will be peer reviewed and applicants will have the opportunity to co-submit their paper to the journal Policy and Internet, which will operate a fast-track review process for accepted papers.

Deadlines

• Abstract deadline: 500 words to be submitted by 15 March 2010
• Decision on abstracts: 15 April 2010
• Poster deadline: 15 April 2010 (Best Poster Prize: £200)
• Accepted paper submission deadline: 9 September 2010

All abstracts, papers and correspondence should be sent to: ipp2010@oii.ox.ac.uk

Conference Chairs

• Professor Helen Margetts (OII)
• Dr Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon (OII)
• Dr Stephen Ward (University of Salford)

About the speakers

• Professor Patrick Dunleavy

  One of the UK’s most important political scientists, and author of books in the field such as ‘Theories of the Democratic State’ (with J.Dryzek), Patrick Dunleavy’s work with the LSE Public Policy Group includes detailed analyses of public sector productivity, citizen redress, policy evaluation, and e-government.

  Further information on Professor Patrick Dunleavy

• Professor Arthur Lupia

  A leading scholar on voting, civic competence, parliamentary governance and political communication, Arthur Lupia’s research has clarified our understanding of how information and institutions affect policy and politics, and how people make decisions when they lack information.

  Further information on Professor Arthur Lupia

• Professor Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

  A legal scholar specialising in the role of information in a networked economy, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger’s most recent book ‘Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age’ has received major attention worldwide.

  Further information on Professor Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

Partners and sponsors

This conference is convened by the Oxford Internet Institute (University of Oxford) in partnership with the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) Internet and Politics Section, the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), and the Journal Policy and Interne

The day is designed to bring cutting edge research to the Pervasive Media design community under the auspices of an AHRC Knowledge Transfer Fellowship project.

Pervasive Media may afford an intensification of surveillance, data mining, and loss of privacy, and this is certainly the perception amongst many potential designers and users. ‘Pervasive or Invasive?’ is designed as a day of presentations and discussions with people from different disciplines, to generate shared understandings of the issues, and then start to define what Ethical Design in Pervasive Media might be. The day will have workshop discussion opportunities – working with developers and designers to generate the beginnings of a set of ethical design principles for Pervasive Media applications.

• What data is being collected/collated and commercially exploited by the applications we use?
• When does anonymity matter?
• Is it possible to design an application so that people are able to choose which information they share?
• What levels of user consent are needed?
• Which design decisions can be left to the end user?

SCHEDULE
Monday, Feb 22
W2 Culture + Media House • 112 W Hastings

12:00pm – Registration and hot soup lunch
1:00pm – Keynote by Andy Miah followed by plenary dialogue
3:00pm – Salt Spring Coffee Co and desserts
3:15pm – Break-out workshops:
Workshop 1: Harnessing the Media to Activate Citizens
Workshop 2: Bejing to London
5:00pm – Wine & hors d’ouevres reception

Join Fresh Media and W2 at the W2 Culture + Media House on Monday for
this afternoon of intellectual dialogue on the impact social media has
had on the stories surrounding the Olympic games. The Winter Olympics
and Paralympics are expected to draw 3 billion television and 70
million website viewers worldwide and will generate more wireless and
social media-based content than any previous Olympics.

With this explosion of citizen-generated media tools in the hands of
Olympic fans and foes, as well as pervasive reporting by new media
journalists and bloggers, will social media have its journalistic
coming-out party this February?

The conference features a keynote from Andy Miah, author of
‘Genetically Modified Athletes’ (2004) and ‘A Digital Olympics:
Digital Games, Ethics & Cultures’ (The MIT Press, 2010), and panels
with senior journalists and industry watchers from the USA, UK,
Canada, and elsewhere. An afternoon unconference program provides open
space for participant led-workshops with an added emphasis on practice
and a summary of the first Olympic week. The conference also brings
people face-to-face for networking and sharing tips on theory,
practice, legal and operations. W2 will webstream to reach viewers
outside Vancouver. The day wraps with a Cinq à Sept reception and open
for everyone!

This event is produced by W2 with assistance from the Fresh Media Crew
- more at: http://freshmedia.me

Over the first week of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, British journalism has caught the attention of the global media for their attacks on the Games. The focal point has been a Guardian writer, who is working out in Canada and whose narrative has reached major media providers around the world.

Having been in Vancouver for a few days, I have already been contacted by various international journalists wanting my view on the subject and there is clear sensitivity among the organizers and the IOC over how much this narrative is dominating the coverage of these games.

But, what basis is there for the claim that Vancouver’s Games could soon be seen as the ‘worst in history’? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/feb/15/vancouver-winter-olympics-2010). As someone who is working as a British journalist in Vancouver, there is a need to advance a counterpoint to this view on Vancouver’s Games, because it is hard to see that there is any basis whatsoever for coming to the conclusion, or even that it could be possible.

Certainly, there have been some shaky starts which have overshadowed certain components, such as the death of a Georgian athlete the day before the opening ceremony. There was also considerable concern about the lack of snow at venues, which has led to the cancellation of tickets for sports. There have also been protests around the city, notably involving disruption to the torch relay’s final leg, and the lighting of the cauldron had a minor glitch.

However, none of these episodes detracts from the fact that the Olympic Games in Vancouver are delivering a vastly enjoyable experience for hundreds of thousands of people around the city and the mountain resorts. Transportation has been seamless and venues are packed every day.

There is no lack of excitement about the sports and the Victory Ceremonies venue is sold out each night for what is one of the biggest Winter Games time celebrations in history. Throughout the streets, there are huge numbers of people who are living the festival experience of the Olympic Games, unconcerned about whether they have tickets or not.

All over the city, expressions of celebration and criticism are widely apparent. For the latter in particular, Vancouver has delivered more expressions of social concern than any other recent Olympic Games. This is a victory that Vancouver, as a host city and as a community can claim, as their Games shine a light on contemporary social injustices, which the Olympic movement as a whole seeks to interrogate.

As someone who advocates critical journalism on the Olympic Games, the British media are risking their own credibility in focusing too much on the wrong kinds of issues around Vancouver.

Speaking yesterday at the International Sport Business Symposium in UBC former IOC Vice President Richard Pound gave an overview of the massive logistical challenge that is the Olympic Games. He concluded by noting that if one athlete misses their competition due to disruption, then it is disastrous. However, if a journalist misses the competition, then all hell breaks lose.

This speaks to a major challenge around the Games in terms of how it privileges media to such an extent that they can lose all perspective on their role. At an Olympic Games, the media are not merely the messenger, but a powerful arbiter of truth, the independence of which is compromised due to the formal, financial relationship they have with the IOC.

What makes an Olympic Games successful depends often on whether the media decide they’re having a good experience or not. This is why so much investment and attention is given to making their experience first class. However, there is no mechanism to hold journalists accountable for their reporting, nor is there space to independently assess media experiences. The result is that a single story with relatively limited evidence to support its claims can be amplified to reach global attention. This seems to have happened with some of the British reporting.

One of the twists in this saga is how people in Vancouver are interpreting the British complaints, which are seen in the context of the fact that London 2012 Games is next. Is London trying to make Vancouver look bad in order to ensure that London’s Games will be remembered as the best in history? After all, it is much easier to follow an act that has received widespread criticism than one that has been regarded to be a high standard to reach.

Regardless of the reasons, given Britain’s role in the next Olympic Games delivery, its media should focus more on representing how and whether the Olympic Games of Vancouver is fulfilling its broad role as a mechanism for social change around sport participation, rather than spend time detailing all of the trivial flaws in what is an otherwise a very fluid Games.

Being able to deliver a Games at all in the wake of global economic meltdown is an achievement that many cities would not have been able to attain and, despite the controversies, medals will be won, countries will have been brought closer together through sport, and new legacies of spectator participation will have been forged through the Vancouver Olympics.

The first two entries for this Games have been about the Opening Ceremony and New Media Activism. Much more to come, including a piece on doping, the Olympic Truce. In the mean time, here’s some retro stimulation:

The year 2010 marks the 10-year anniversary of two technological revolutions – the genetic and the digital. It is also one of the most prominent years projected as ‘the future’ in 20th century science fiction.

Professor Miah’s inaugural Professorial lecture will discuss his contribution to imagining the future and critiquing the present, by outlining the successes and failures of technological culture, and their implications for an era that marks the end of humanism.

Where + When: 23 March, 2010, 6pm, Centre for Contemporary Art, Glasgow.

bring: laptops, mobiles, tweet enabled – hashtag #posthuman

Outline

Ten years ago, the first working draft of the human genome project was completed and promised to revolutionize our world. No longer would we be subject to the chance results of the genetic lottery, but could instead, look forward to limitless choices over how we look, behave, feel, and even create future generations.

In the same year, the dot-com bubble peaked and would soon give rise to its first crash. Out of it emerged the Web 2.0 era, a period of more responsible speculation, characterized by open source collaboration. Web 2.0 meant that some of the aspirations to destabilize traditional media forms, which were suggested in the first Internet era, could now be more effectively realized, as the power of user generating communities begun to topple the isolationism of media giants.

These two trajectories – the biological and the digital – have transformed our lives in profound ways and tell the story of how we became posthuman. However, the implications of the biotechnological and digital eras are only just beginning to crystallize and the cautionary tales that they have already generated about technological determinism and dependence need reiterating.

Join Professor Andy Miah for his inaugural lecture at the University of the West of Scotland, during which he will look back on how 21st century technology is revolutionizing our world and what this means for the lives we will lead in the future.

Tags: #bioethics #newmedia #olympic #genetics #digitaleconomy #sport

Background

Professor Andy Miah, age 34, studied at De Montfort University, England and spent the last year of his PhD in Barcelona. In 2002, he came to Scotland and worked at University of Abertay Dundee and as an Associate Lecturer at Glasgow University, before taking the position at UWS. Over the years, he has developed long term collaborations with world leading organizations, such as the world’s leading bioethics institute, the Hastings Center in New York. In 2005, he was made one of the Founding fellows of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies in the USA. In 2008, he was made the first Fellow of the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology in Liverpool, the UK’s leading centre for digital art. Professor Miah has given Master classes around the world including such institutions as the Royal College of Art, Harvard University, Oxford University, University of Geneva, among others.

In 2009, Professor Miah was appointed as Chair of Ethics and Emerging Technologies at UWS. Since being at the university, he has developed a wide range of subject areas, creating such courses as Becoming Posthuman, Cyberculture & Olympic Spectacle. Alongside his work on bioethics, he has written extensively about digital culture. Professor Miah’s research has investigated the ethical and cultural implications of technological change. He has contributed to a wide range of academic disciplines, publishing in as varied a range of journals as Nature, the Journal of Medical Ethics, Cultural Politics, the Journal of Evolution and Technology, and the Journal of Sport Science. He has served as an expert advisor in various international contexts, from the European Parliament’s inquiry into human enhancement, to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s early exploration of genetic doping. Professor Miah is an Editorial Board member for 6 international journals, consisting of Genomics, Society and Policy, Health Care Analysis, Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, Second Nature: International Journal of Creative Media, International Journal of Technoethics.

He is also a scholar of the Olympic Movement and his controversial research on genetic doping, along with his studies of the media at 6 Olympic Games cities calls for a legacy that is socially responsible, accountable and, above all, culturally transformative.

In 8 years of postdoctoral research Professor Miah has appeared in over 150 news outlets around the world, including BBC’s Newsnight and Andrew Marr’s Start the Week. He has also written for broadsheet news outlets from the Washington Post and the Huffington Post, the leading USA liberal political blog. He is currently a columnist for the Guardian and has been featured in profile pieces within the Scotsman and The Times.

Professor Miah is the author/editor of 4 books, notably ‘Human Futures: Art in an Age of Uncertainty’ (2008), The Medicalization of Cyberspace (2008) and Genetically Modified Athletes (2004), the latter of which was recently translated by Phorte in Brazil, where the 2016 Olympic Games will take place. He is currently completing a book for The MIT Press titled ‘A Digital Olympics: Cybersport, Social Gaming and Citizen Media’ (2011).

The event if open to the media.
For interviews prior to the event, please contact:

Niall Gordon
Senior Marketing Co-ordinator – PR
Corporate Marketing
University of the West of Scotland
Paisley Campus, PA1 2BE

Tel: +44 (0) 141 848 3726 / +44 (0) 7764 285 882
Email: niall.gordon@uws.ac.uk

Today, one of the world’s leading journal Science published an essay by Ted Friedmann, Olivier Rabin and Mark S. Frankel on the likely use of gene doping in sport (Friedmann et al. 2010, Is Gene Doping a threat to sport?, Science). Over the years, I’ve been on numerous panels, interviews and projects with Friedmann and Rabin and even reviewed this article – favourably – before it was publised. Both authors work with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA); Rabin is on staff as their Science Director, Friedmann is Chair of WADA’s Gene Doping Expert Group and has performed research sponsored by WADA. Frankel, the third author and lead correspondent is staff at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the publisher of the journal Science. We have not met.

Compared to these authors, my views on the nature of sport are quite different, but we each agree that a) the use of gene transfer in sport is likely and b) the broad societal use of gene transfer in society would bring into question WADA’s mandate. My interactions with Ted Friedmann, in particular, have been the kinds of exchanges one would always want from colleagues, particularly adversaries. So, it’s with great pleasure that I offer an update on my views about gene doping, as a counter point to their essay.

I was tempted to contact Science directly and ask them to publish this, but it surely wouldn’t come out until after the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, which is the most immediate landmark when this conversation will have currency. The timing of Friedmann et al. is thus perfectly placed to do WADA’s work of indicating that it is going to solve the gene doping problem, but there needs to be a counter argument in place.

Forgive me if some sentences are a little sketchy, this was put together in a couple of hours.

PS: My book Genetically Modifed Athletes (2004) has just been translated into Portuguese by the Brazilian publisher Phorte – roll on Rio 2016.

Gene Doping: A reality, but not a threat

by Professor Andy Miah / +44 7891 850 497 / email@andymiah.net / in Vancouver from 17-26 Feb  [feel welcome to republish this essay]

The world of elite sport has spent nearly 10 years investigating the science of gene doping. Back in 2001, they were very much ahead of the game, as therapeutic gene transfer was only just beginning to demonstate efficacy, though over this period, achievements in gene therapy have been limited. Nevertheless, the modus operandi of WADA over this decade is that gene transfer presents a real, technical possibility that requires scrutiny and action. Indeed, it is anticipated that athletes will soon try to use the same science to enhance their performances. It may even happen at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games.

Within anti-doping policy, genetic enhancement has been characterised as an illegal form of performance enhancement since 2003, in large part, because it would constitute an illegal use of medical technology for a non-medical purpose. In this sense, gene doping is treated in the same way as other doping methods. Yet, will this decision to treat it as morally impermissible stand the test of time, in an era where people are increasingly willing to modify themselves?

Such a speculation has no place in clinical practice and has only limited value for regulatory authorities who are, rightly, focused on making the practices they govern as safe as possible. Yet, the broader questions that gene doping presents are about how humanity envisages its future. Moreover, how we attend to this imminent technology today will affect how we regard it in years to come. As such, we cannot simply retreat to the view that genetic enhancement is mere science fiction. Indeed, it is widely recognized that the science of gene doping is already a technological reality.

I envisage a future for humanity where gene transfer – and many other forms of human enhancement – is sufficiently safe for its widespread use and where it becomes an integral part of our pursuit of good health. Indeed, undertaking such modifications would be considered as normal as body piercing or cosmetic surgery. Such attempts to promote our health will become increasingly important in an evermore-toxic world and will create a scenario where the population is, as a whole, more capable of performing in extreme conditions – such as elite sports competition.

Yet, this isn’t just a matter for sports to decide, as the legitimate use of gene transfer in sport will undoubtedly be preceded by its legitimate use in society more generally. Thus, non-athletes would also be using gene transfer to improve their competitive edge in the world or their overall functional capabilities, rather like obtaining a good education, eating the right food or stimulating our cognitive abilities by mental exercises.

An important ethical distinction in medicine is made between decisions that are made on behalf of someone and those that we choose to do for our own potential gain. The forms of genetic enhancement I have discussed thus far are broadly self-regarding, in that they only after the biology of the person to whom the modification has been made. In contrast, we might decide to genetically modify our hereditary genes – the germ-line – to ensure that subsequent generations have an advantage in life or, at least, are not made to suffer serious illnesses. This raises additional ethical concerns, which have yet to enter the radar of WADA, due to their seeming even more remote.

Nevertheless, in both cases, genetic enhancement should, first, be seen as an attempt to increase the resilience of the body to illness and injury, rather than as a radical shift towards transhuman enhancements. We wouldn’t be genetically design high-jumpers, but would instead amplify a range of biological parameters – such as height – which may translate into characteristics that would be optimal for certain kinds of physical activity. As such, the more radical prospects of gene transfer – such as genetically enhancing an embryo to be a good athlete – should be treated as science fiction.

In any case, it is not just these clear-cut instances of non-medical enhancements that will present difficult moral issues to solve. Even harder cases arise when considering whether gene transfer could be used to treat modestly debilitating conditions, such as asthma. Overall, we may conclude that a person would be better of without such conditions, but in the case of selecting embryos, we would be hard pressed to justify the use of pre-implantation genetic selection for such purposes. Any woman to have gone through pre-implantation cycles, in order to avoid passing on some heritable condition, will know that it makes no sense to talk of going through such an ordeal were it not to avoid only the most severe health risks for the prospective child.

Yet, when it comes to individuals modifying themselves – rather than their offspring, other forms of argumentation are required to justify their prohibition.. In actual fact, WADA’s precedent for permitting therapeutic use means that genetically modified athletes can compete; they just need a doctor to approve the medical use of the doping substance. This is why WADA is particularly anxious about monitoring whether athletes are enrolling into gene transfer clinical trials. It is also why the world of sport is anxious when there appears to be a higher rate of therapeutic use within the athlete population, compared to the general population, as it may imply that athletes are either gaining fake prescriptions or that there is some more sinister medical collusion to enhance athletes.

The challenge for the sports world is not just that gene transfer would be used to break the rules, but that the therapeutic use of gene transfer may create athletes who are even more capable than the so-called healthy athlete. Intimations of this shift are occurring in the context of Paralympic sport, where the prosthetically enhanced athlete is beginning to surpass the so-called able-bodied athlete, as in the case of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius.

One of the big challenges that will determine whether WADA’s gene doping problem can be solved is their ability to detect it. Yet, the present absence of detection methods, coupled with shifting social values on the morality of enhancement challenges the integrity and relevance of an anti-enhancement movement like anti-doping.

There are already indications of what a sports world full of commercial genetic products might look like. In 2004, the first commercial genetic test for a performance gene emerged on the market, the SportsGeneTest™ commercialised by Genetic Technologies (Australia). Tests of this kind were condemned by WADA at its landmark meeting on gene doping in 2005. WADA is particularly concerned that such tests might discourage young athletes from participating in sport, just because their genetic profile doesn’t match the ideal type for a given sport.

Yet, it is unlikely that WADA’s advice on the use of genetic tests will have any wider societal impact on the use of tests for more general use. Moreover, even if such tests are frowned upon – in part because their validity is dubious – it is doubtful that the potential harm from their use would be sufficiently serious to warrant their prohibition.

While the same analysis is not likely to hold for medically invasive modifications, like gene transfer, it will be for society to decide how it permits people to accumulate biocultural capital via human enhancements. Yet, rather than devaluing sports, I suspect that there will be considerable interest to witness and experience the extraordinary achievements of genetically modified athletes whom will still be worthy of our admiration. They will still train, struggle and achieve as athletes do today. The only difference will be that their edge over each oither will be determined by chosen genetic differences, rather than those wrought by the genetic lottery. On this basis, gene doping should not be seen as a threat to sport, but an opportunity for it to redefine its boundaries and, potentially, work towards the development of safer forms of performance enhancement.

On this final point, I was quoted today in the Edmonton Journal and Vancouver Sun for saying that gene doping my be safer than other doping practices and that it might not be that bad. The critical point here is that, if we are able to develop the technology under controlled conditions, then there’s a greater chance of ending up with a safer form of enhancement since, unlike synthetic products, genetic augmentation will be more closely aligned to our indviidaul biochemistry.

I see nothing morally problematic about utilizing genetic technology to promote health and if the consequence of such actions is that we all become as capable of sprinting as Usain Bolt, then all the better. Admittedly, he may have to work a little harder to win the race, but, as we saw from  his performance at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, that wouldnt be such a difficult task.

This lecture will be written up for the Huffington Post. Keep watching.

All students are wellcome. Place a comment in this website, if you’d like to attend. It’s on ou Hamilton campus from 1:30pm.

Image (C) VANOC / COVAN