@article{kokotovich_barnhill-dilling_elsensohn_li_delborne_burrack_2022, title={Stakeholder engagement to inform the risk assessment and governance of gene drive technology to manage spotted-wing drosophila}, volume={307}, ISSN={["1095-8630"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114480}, DOI={10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114480}, abstractNote={Emerging biotechnologies, such as gene drive technology, are increasingly being proposed to manage a variety of pests and invasive species. As one method of genetic biocontrol, gene drive technology is currently being developed to manage the invasive agricultural pest spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, SWD). While there have been calls for stakeholder engagement on gene drive technology, there has been a lack of empirical work, especially concerning stakeholder engagement to inform risk assessment. To help address this gap and inform future risk assessments and governance decisions for SWD gene drive technology, we conducted a survey of 184 SWD stakeholders to explore how they define and prioritize potential benefits and potential adverse effects from proposed SWD gene drive technology. We found that stakeholders considered the most important potential benefits of SWD gene drive technology to be: 1) Decrease in the quantity or toxicity of pesticides used, and 2) Decrease in SWD populations. Stakeholders were most concerned about the potential adverse effects of: 1) Decrease in beneficial insects, 2) Increase in non-SWD secondary pest infestations, and 3) Decrease in grower profits. Notably, we found that even stakeholders who expressed support for the use of SWD gene drive technology expressed concerns about potential adverse effects from the technology, emphasizing the need to move past simplistic, dichotomous views of what it means to support or oppose a technology. These findings suggest that instead of focusing on the binary question of whether stakeholders support or oppose SWD gene drive technology, it is more important to identify and assess the factors that are consequential to stakeholder decision making - including, for example, exploring whether and under what conditions key potential adverse effects and potential benefits would result from the use of SWD gene drive technology.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Barnhill-Dilling, S. Kathleen and Elsensohn, Johanna E. and Li, Richard and Delborne, Jason A. and Burrack, Hannah}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{cummings_kuzma_kokotovich_glas_grieger_2021, title={Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers}, volume={23}, ISSN={["2452-0748"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100326}, abstractNote={The use of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials in food and agriculture (nano-agrifood) sectors is intended to provide several potential benefits to consumers and society, such as the provision of more nutritious processed foods, edible food coatings to extend shelf lives of fresh cut produce, and more sustainable alternatives to traditional agrochemicals. The responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods may be particularly important to pursue given previous case studies involving other agrifood technologies that experienced significant public consternation. Here, we define responsible innovation following Stilgoej et al. (2013) that establishes processes to iteratively review and reflect upon one's innovation, engage stakeholders in dialogue, and to be open and transparent throughout innovation stages - processes that go beyond primary focuses of understanding environmental, health, and safety impacts of nano-enabled products and implementing safe-by-design principles. Despite calls for responsible nano-innovation across diverse sectors, it has not yet been clear what types of barriers are faced by nano-agrifood researchers and innovators in particular. This study therefore identifies and builds the first typology of barriers to responsible innovation as perceived by researchers and product developers working in nano-agrifood sectors in the United States. Our findings report 5 key barriers to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Lack of Data (reported by 70% of all interview participants, and represented 34.6% of all barrier-related excerpts), Lack of Product Oversight (reported by 60% of participants, and represented 28.7% of excerpts), Need for Ensuring Marketability & Use (reported by 70% of participants, and represented 21.3% of all barrier-related excerpts), Need for Increased Collaboration (reported by 40% of participants, and represented 10.3% of excerpts), and finally Lack of Adequate Training & Workforce (reported by 30% of participants, and represented by 5.1% of excerpts). We also relate these key barriers across three main nano-innovation phases, including 1) Scientific and Technical R&D, 2) Product Oversight, and 3) Post-commercialization Marketability & Use, and discuss how these barriers may impact stakeholders as well as present opportunities to align with principles of responsible innovation. Overall, these findings may help illuminate challenges that researchers and innovators face in the pursuit of responsible innovation relevant for the field of nanotechnology with relevancy for other emerging food and agricultural technologies more broadly.}, journal={NANOIMPACT}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Kokotovich, Adam and Glas, David and Grieger, Khara}, year={2021}, month={Jul} }
 @article{kokotovich_kuzma_cummings_grieger_2021, title={Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture}, volume={15}, ISSN={1871-4757 1871-4765}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9}, DOI={10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3}, journal={NanoEthics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Cummings, Christopher L. and Grieger, Khara}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={229–243} }
 @article{grieger_merck_cuchiara_binder_kokotovich_cummings_kuzma_2021, title={Responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Insights and views from U.S. stakeholders}, volume={24}, ISSN={2452-0748}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, abstractNote={To date, there has been little published work that has elicited diverse stakeholder views of nano-agrifoods and of how nano-agrifoods align with the goals of responsible innovation. This paper aims to fill this research gap by investigating views of nano-agrifoods, how well their development adheres to principles of responsible innovation, and potential challenges for achieving responsible nano-agrifood innovation. Using an online engagement platform, we find that U.S. stakeholder views of responsible innovation were dominated by environmental, health, and safety (EHS) contexts, considerations of societal impacts, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and responding to societal needs. These views overlap with scholarly definitions of responsible innovation, albeit stakeholders were more focused on impacts of products, while the field of responsible innovation strives for more "upstream" considerations of the process of innovation. We also find that views of nano-agrifoods differed across applications with dietary supplements and improved whitening of infant formula viewed least favorably, and environmental health or food safety applications viewed most favorably. These findings align with the larger body of literature, whereby stakeholders are expected to be more supportive of nanotechnology used in agricultural applications compared to directly within food and food supplements. Overall, participants indicated they held relatively neutral views on research and innovation for nano-agrifoods being conducted responsibly, and they identified key challenges to ensuring their responsible innovation that were related to uncertainties in EHS studies, the need for public understanding and acceptance, and adequate regulation. In light of these results, we recommend future research efforts on EHS impacts and risk-benefit frameworks for nano-agrifoods, better understanding stakeholder views on what constitutes effective regulation, and addressing challenges with effective regulation and responsible innovation practices.}, journal={NanoImpact}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Grieger, Khara D. and Merck, Ashton W. and Cuchiara, Maude and Binder, Andrew R. and Kokotovich, Adam and Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2021}, month={Oct}, pages={100365} }
 @article{hartley_smith_kokotovich_opesen_habtewold_ledingham_raymond_rwabukwali_2021, title={Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1475-2875"]}, DOI={10.1186/s12936-021-03682-6}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={MALARIA JOURNAL}, author={Hartley, Sarah and Smith, Robert D. J. and Kokotovich, Adam and Opesen, Chris and Habtewold, Tibebu and Ledingham, Katie and Raymond, Ben and Rwabukwali, Charles B.}, year={2021}, month={Mar} }
 @article{kokotovich_delborne_elsensohn_burrack_2020, title={Emerging Technologies for Invasive Insects: The Role of Engagement}, volume={113}, ISSN={0013-8746 1938-2901}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saz064}, DOI={10.1093/aesa/saz064}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={Annals of the Entomological Society of America}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E and Delborne, Jason A and Elsensohn, Johanna and Burrack, Hannah}, editor={Morisette, JeffreyEditor}, year={2020}, month={Mar}, pages={266–279} }
 @inbook{hartley_kokotovich_2018, title={Disentangling risk assessment}, ISBN={9781526106476}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.7765/9781526106476.00019}, DOI={10.7765/9781526106476.00019}, abstractNote={Risk assessment is an important stage of risk governance, alongside risk characterisation, risk evaluation and risk management. A burgeoning literature on public involvement in risk governance and sciencebased policymaking more broadly has developed in response to tensions in governing environmental risk, particularly the environmental risks posed by emerging technologies (Irwin, 2014; Levidow, 2007; Renn and Schweizer, 2009; Rothstein, 2013; Wynne, 2006). However, there is relatively little investigation of public involvement in the specific stage of risk assessment, despite increased demands for such involvement (Borrás et al., 2007; Hartley, 2016; Millstone, 2009; Shepherd, 2008). European and North American regulatory agencies have a statutory obligation to involve the public in risk governance, and in recent years many have opened up the traditionally scientific domain of risk assessment to public input through online consultations. In addition, international bodies have created opportunities to engage a broader range of experts and stakeholders. However, there is evidence that regulatory agencies and international organisations are not meeting their statutory obligations, falling short of their own guidelines in practice (Dreyer and Renn, 2014; Hartley, 2016; Herwig, 2014). We argue that public involvement in risk assessment is not reaching its full potential owing to a considerable lack of clarity in the literature and in practice about which publics should be involved in risk assessment and at what point they should be involved. Much of the riskgovernance literature examining public involvement fails to disentangle adequately the process of risk assessment when examining questions}, booktitle={Science and the politics of openness}, publisher={Manchester University Press}, author={Hartley, Sarah and Kokotovich, Adam}, year={2018}, month={Feb} }
 @inbook{hartley_kokotovich_2018, place={Manchester, England}, title={Disentangling risk assessment: new roles for experts and publics}, url={http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=643155}, booktitle={Science and the Politics of Openness: Here Be Monsters}, publisher={Manchester University Press}, author={Hartley, S. and Kokotovich, A.}, editor={Nerlich, B. and Hartley, S. and Raman, S. and Smith, A.Editors}, year={2018}, pages={176–194} }
 @article{escobar_mallez_mccartney_lee_zielinski_ghosal_bajer_wagner_nash_tomamichel_et al._2017, title={Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great Lakes Region: An Overview}, volume={26}, ISSN={2330-8249 2330-8257}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2017.1363715}, DOI={10.1080/23308249.2017.1363715}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are of concern in North America due to their devastating impacts on ecosystems and economies. The Great Lakes region is particularly vulnerable to AIS introduction and establishment with at least 184 nonindigenous species reported in this region from a large number of taxa including viruses, bacteria, diatoms, protozoa, arthropods, mollusks, fish, and plants. Representative species from these groups were explored, describing the features of their natural history and current efforts in prevention and control. Specifically, five AIS that are expected to spread to novel areas in the region are discussed: viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus and heterosporis (pathogens affecting fish), starry stonewort (an alga), zebra mussels (a bivalve), and carps (fishes). Novel strategies for AIS control include next-generation sequencing technologies, gene editing, mathematical modeling, risk assessment, microbiome studies for biological control, and human-dimension studies to address tensions related to AIS management. Currently, AIS research is evolving to adapt to known technologies and develop novel technologies to understand and prevent AIS spread. It was found that AIS control in this region requires a multidisciplinary approach focusing on the life history of the species (e.g., pheromones), adaptive management of anthropogenic structures (e.g., bubble curtains), and the integration of human dimensions to develop efficient management plans that integrate local citizens and management agencies.}, number={1}, journal={Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Escobar, Luis E. and Mallez, Sophie and McCartney, Michael and Lee, Christine and Zielinski, Daniel P. and Ghosal, Ratna and Bajer, Przemyslaw G. and Wagner, Carli and Nash, Becca and Tomamichel, Megan and et al.}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={121–138} }
 @article{kokotovich_andow_2017, title={Exploring tensions and conflicts in invasive species management: The case of Asian carp}, volume={69}, ISSN={1462-9011}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.016}, DOI={10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.016}, abstractNote={There is a growing recognition that scientific and social conflict pervades invasive species management, but there is a need for empirical work that can help better understand these conflicts and how they can be addressed. We examined the tensions and conflicts facing invasive Asian carp management in Minnesota by conducting 16 in-depth interviews with state and federal agency officials, academics, and stakeholders. Interviewees discussed the tensions and conflicts they saw impacting management, their implications, and what could be done to address them. We found three key areas of conflict and tension in Asian carp management: 1) scientific uncertainty concerning the impacts of Asian carp and the efficacy and non-target effects of possible management actions; 2) social uncertainty concerning both the lack of societal agreement on how to respond to Asian carp and the need to avoid acting from apathy and/or fear; and 3) the desired approach to research and management – whether it is informed by “political need” or “biological reality”. Our study of these tensions and conflicts reveals their importance to Asian carp management and to invasive species management, more broadly. We conclude with a discussion of possible ways to address these areas of tension and conflict, including the potential of deliberative, participatory approaches to risk-related decision making and the need to productively engage with apathy and fear.}, journal={Environmental Science & Policy}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Andow, David A.}, year={2017}, month={Mar}, pages={105–112} }
 @article{kuzma_kokotovich_kuzhabekova_2016, title={Attitudes Towards Governance of Gene Editing}, volume={18}, number={1}, journal={Asian Biotechnology and Development Review}, author={Kuzma, J. and Kokotovich, A. and Kuzhabekova, A.}, year={2016}, pages={69–92} }
 @article{kokotovich_kuzma_2014, title={Conflicting Futures}, volume={34}, ISSN={0270-4676 1552-4183}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467614565695}, DOI={10.1177/0270467614565695}, abstractNote={ Novel targeted genetic modification (TagMo) techniques for plants have the potential to increase the speed and ease of genetic modification and fall outside existing regulatory authority. We conducted 31 interviews with expert-stakeholders to explore the differing visions they have for the future of plant TagMo environmental regulation. To guide our analysis we review the tenets of anticipatory governance in light of future studies literature on emerging technology, focusing on how to contribute to reflexivity by making explicit the assumptions within envisioned futures. Our findings reveal that the environmental regulation futures articulated by expert-stakeholders could be classified into three categories—optimistic, pragmatic, and critical—based on their differing underlying assumptions concerning what constitutes environmental risk and the adequacy of existing U.S. genetically modified plant regulations. By gathering these diverse perspectives on the future and studying how they differ, we hope to further the anticipatory governance-informed engagement with regulation and foster a more productive discussion of plant TagMo regulation. }, number={3-4}, journal={Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Kokotovich, Adam and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2014}, month={Jun}, pages={108–120} }
 @article{kokotovich_zeilinger_2011, title={Exploring social and institutional variation across oak wilt risk management programs in Minnesota, USA}, volume={10}, ISSN={1618-8667}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.09.004}, DOI={10.1016/j.ufug.2010.09.004}, abstractNote={The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with United States Forest Service, has implemented a risk management program to fund local government action aimed at containing the exotic invasive oak tree pathogen, Ceratocystis fagacearum – the causal agent of oak wilt. In administering the oak wilt ReLeaf program, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and United States Forest Service sought to facilitate efficient and effective management through enabling and mobilizing local land managers. Because the program is decentralized and because cities and counties are heterogeneous, local land managers take advantage of the program in different ways. Our goal in this study was to document the social and institutional variation in oak wilt management programs at the local (city and county) level, and provide preliminary insights into the causes of the variation. Specifically we asked: what factors constrain and facilitate oak wilt management at the local level; and how do ReLeaf program funds influence local management? To address these questions, we completed 12 in-depth qualitative interviews with foresters and private contractors, yielding information on 16 oak wilt management programs in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, Minnesota, USA. Through our analysis we identified five emergent themes that produce and reflect the overall variation in oak wilt management programs: (1) existence and enforcement of Potential Spore Producing Tree removal ordinances; (2) amount of local resources and potential effect of decrease in state funding; (3) differences across urban and rural areas; (4) differences in program goals and landowner cost sharing structures; and (5) ability to attain the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ suppression goal. These findings describe factors contributing to variation across oak wilt management programs, illustrate challenges facing local invasive species management efforts, and provide insights for designing improved invasive species management programs at the federal, state and local level.}, number={1}, journal={Urban Forestry & Urban Greening}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Zeilinger, Adam R.}, year={2011}, month={Jan}, pages={39–45} }
 @article{kuzma_kokotovich_2011, title={Renegotiating GM crop regulation}, volume={12}, ISSN={1469-221X 1469-3178}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.160}, DOI={10.1038/embor.2011.160}, abstractNote={Targeted genetic modification, which enables scientists to genetically engineer plants more efficiently and precisely, challenges current process‐based regulatory frameworks for genetically modified crops.}, number={9}, journal={EMBO reports}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Kokotovich, Adam}, year={2011}, month={Aug}, pages={883–888} }
 @article{kuzma_paradise_ramachandran_kim_kokotovich_wolf_2008, title={An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies}, volume={28}, ISSN={0272-4332 1539-6924}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x}, abstractNote={Analysis of oversight systems is often conducted from a single disciplinary perspective and by using a limited set of criteria for evaluation. In this article, we develop an approach that blends risk analysis, social science, public administration, legal, public policy, and ethical perspectives to develop a broad set of criteria for assessing oversight systems. Multiple methods, including historical analysis, expert elicitation, and behavioral consensus, were employed to develop multidisciplinary criteria for evaluating oversight of emerging technologies. Sixty‐six initial criteria were identified from extensive literature reviews and input from our Working Group. Criteria were placed in four categories reflecting the development, attributes, evolution, and outcomes of oversight systems. Expert elicitation, consensus methods, and multidisciplinary review of the literature were used to refine a condensed, operative set of criteria. Twenty‐eight criteria resulted spanning four categories: seven development criteria, 15 attribute criteria, five outcome criteria, and one evolution criterion. These criteria illuminate how oversight systems develop, operate, change, and affect society. We term our approach “integrated oversight assessment” and propose its use as a tool for analyzing relationships among features, outcomes, and tradeoffs of oversight systems. Comparisons among historical case studies of oversight using a consistent set of criteria should result in defensible and evidence‐supported lessons to guide the development of oversight systems for emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology.}, number={5}, journal={Risk Analysis}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Paradise, Jordan and Ramachandran, Gurumurthy and Kim, Jee-Ae and Kokotovich, Adam and Wolf, Susan M.}, year={2008}, month={Oct}, pages={1197–1220} }
 @article{kuzma_romanchek_kokotovich_2008, title={Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach}, volume={28}, ISSN={["1539-6924"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-48349093922&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x}, abstractNote={Although nanotechnology is broadly receiving attention in public and academic circles, oversight issues associated with applications for agriculture and food remain largely unexplored. Agrifood nanotechnology is at a critical stage in which informed analysis can help shape funding priorities, risk assessment, and oversight activities. This analysis is designed to help society and policymakers anticipate and prepare for challenges posed by complicated, convergent applications of agrifood nanotechnology. The goal is to identify data, risk assessment, regulatory policy, and engagement needs for overseeing these products so they can be addressed prior to market entry. Our approach, termed upstream oversight assessment (UOA), has potential as a key element of anticipatory governance. It relies on distinct case studies of proposed applications of agrifood nanotechnology to highlight areas that need study and attention. As a tool for preparation, UOA anticipates the types and features of emerging applications; their endpoints of use in society; the extent to which users, workers, ecosystems, or consumers will be exposed; the nature of the material and its safety; whether and where the technologies might fit into current regulatory system(s); the strengths and weaknesses of the system(s) in light of these novel applications; and the possible social concerns related to oversight for them.}, number={4}, journal={Risk Analysis}, author={Kuzma, J. and Romanchek, J. and Kokotovich, A.}, year={2008}, pages={1081–1098} }