**6. Concluding remarks**

allow for compromise among the conflicted parties. This is best achieved through the role of

Pielke suggests there are four different roles in how scientists (and other experts) can relate to

**1.** *Pure Scientist* focuses on research with absolutely no consideration for its use or utility, and therefore in its purest form has no direct connection with decision-makers;

**2.** *Issue Advocate* focuses on the implications of research for a particular political agenda;

**3.** *Science Arbiter* seeks to stay removed from explicit considerations of policy and politics like the Pure Scientist, but recognises that decision-makers may have specific questions

**4.** *Honest Broker* of Policy Alternatives engages in decision-making by clarifying and, at

The role of the Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives or Trusted Advisor is critical in the unconventional gas domain in Australia. A Trusted Advisor is inclusive in its communication and engagement with proponents and opponents of CSG; transparent with its governance and research activities; and independent with its scientific research. This enables the Trusted

In the CSG space, not only are there environmental impacts but also social challenges to consider. There is a clash of values that exist between proponents and opponents of the

Science cannot provide black and white answers to all of the challenges and opportunities associated with the CSG industry. However, by fulfilling a *Trusted Advisor* role, science can help all parties to better understand the range of impacts associated with various development scenarios, and provide a common platform for policy makers, developers and communities to negotiate and make decisions. This approach enables science to contribute to the development of new and innovative policy options that might allow for compromise among opposing

*Trusted Advisors* were critical in enabling effective political action to address issues such as ozone depletion and acid rain. In these cases, science did not change people's values or beliefs, but it did create new options that allowed for political compromise, given existing values and

parties, and contribute to practical action in spite of conflicting values.

times, seeking to expand the scope of choice available to decision makers.

Advisor to be widely perceived as a trusted source of information and advice.

Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives[26].

262 Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing

policy and politics[26]. These four idealised roles are:

that require the judgement of experts; and

industry and some of these clashes include:

**•** public benefit versus private disadvantage;

**•** resource access rights versus autonomy.

**•** rural lifestyle versus industry development; and

**•** economy versus ecology;

**•** agriculture versus industry;

beliefs[26].

Science is an integral part of human society and has established, over the centuries, its value to society. Science continues to play a role in contributing significantly to further improving societal and environmental conditions. However, the context in which science research and development takes place is shifting from minimal to increasing public scrutiny and account‐ ability.

Science and its products are intersecting more frequently with certain human beliefs and values. As science encroaches more heavily on value-laden issues, members of the public are claiming a stronger role in both the regulation of science and the shaping of the research agenda[30].

Community sanction has become a pivotal element in the adoption and implementation of new technologies that impact on society, environment and economy[33]. The technology doesn't need to be new to require community sanction or a 'social licence' as illustrated by the unfolding public debate on CSG and hydraulic fracturing in Australia and, indeed, around the world with regards to hydraulic fracturing. Both Victorian and New South Wales (NSW) state governments have slowed CSG development within their state and have placed moratoriums on the use of hydraulic fracturing due to community pressure.

Facts and figures alone will not earn community support and acceptance of CSG developments and the use of hydraulic fracturing. Achieving community acceptance requires a combination of providing trusted and easy to understand information; addressing the perceived risks people have about hydraulic fracturing; and communicating the risk management plans used in the industry. However, if the source of information is distrusted it matters little how full or persuasive that information is.

The role of the *Honest Broker* or *Trusted Advisor* is essential when there is no values consensus and high uncertainty in the community. In this role science is not used to align with a specific agenda nor is it above the fray; it can help all parties to better understand the range of impacts associated with various development scenarios, and contribute to the development of new and innovative policy options that might allow for compromise among opposing parties.

[6] Knight, J. G, Holdsworth, D. K, Mather, D. W, & Food, G. M. and neophobia: con‐ necting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and

How Can Understanding Community Concerns About Hydraulic Fracturing Help to Address Them?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56442

265

[7] Hurlimann, A. cartographer Community attitudes to recycled water use: an urban Australian case study. Part 2. Salisbury, S. Aust.: CRC for Water Quality and Treat‐

[8] Hurlimann, A. C. Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community's

[9] Fielding, K, Russell, S, & Grace, R. Urban Water Security Research A, Water for a Healthy Country F. Residential water demand management in South East Queens‐ land: a report on water conservation beliefs. City East, Qld.: Urban Water Security Research Alliance; (2010). Available from: http://csiro.aquabrowser.com/?itemid=|li‐

[10] Price, J, Fielding, K, Leviston, Z, Bishop, B. J, Nicol, S. C, Greenhill, M. P, et al. Com‐ munity acceptability of the indirect potable use of purified recycled water in South East Queensland: final report of monitoring surveys. City East, Qld.: Urban Water Security Research Alliance; (2010). Available from: http://csiro.aquabrowser.com/?

[11] Eagly, A. H, & Chaiken, S. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: TX: Harcourt,

[12] Frewer, L, Lassen, J, Kettlitz, B, Scholderer, J, Beekman, V, & Berdal, K. G. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology. (2004). Jul;,

[13] Rowe, G. How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable?

[14] Alhakami, A. S, & Slovic, P. A Psychological-Study of the Inverse Relationship be‐ tween Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis. (1994). Dec;, 14(6),

[15] Finucane, M. L, Alhakami, A, Slovic, P, & Johnson, S. M. The affect heuristic in judg‐ ments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. (2000). Jan-Mar;,

[16] Hansen, J, Holm, L, Frewer, L, Robinson, P, & Sandoe, P. Beyond the knowledge def‐ icit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite. (2003). Oct;,

[17] Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B, & Lichtenstein, S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risks. In: Schwing R, Albers WA, editors. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe

Agriculture. (2008). Apr 15;, 88(5), 739-744.

brary/m/CSIRO-voyager|416089.

Brace, & Janovich; (1993).

42(7), 1181-1193.

1085-1096.

13(1), 1-17.

41(2), 111-121.

itemid=|library/m/CSIRO-voyager|416118.

TRENDS in Biotechnology. (2004). Mar;, 22(3), 107-109.

Enough?. New York: Plenum; (1980). , 181-216.

perspective. Environmentalist. (2007). , 27(1), 83-94.

ment; (2008).
