DorganGoFixItPost

=Public Moderation of the Triple Helix=

The triple helix is a model which is used to understand the various forces at work in the complex world of innovation and sustainability. This model consists of three different branches of our society: Industry, university (academia) and government. Each of these branches have their own different influences and all through a series of complex relationships, these forces create our society as we know it. The role of industry is to develop and create various products to be used in our society. The role of universities is to enhance knowledge and understand the effects of various technologies used in our society. The role of government is to shape policies which will either restrict or encourage innovations depending on what is deemed necessary. Unfortunately, these three forces are often not in balance, and therefore there is a need for moderator to decide what is appropriate in terms of policy, products or research.



The Triple Helix and Sustainability Problems
When this triple helix is unbalanced, meaning that one or two areas end up becoming too powerful, then sustainability problems are bound to occur. For example, the fact that the government is being backed by corporations is an example of industry crowding out government, leading to an imbalance. The fact that government subsidizes corn producers (which ends up creating low-quality and unhealthy food) is an example of government having too much force over industry, leading to another imbalance. The fact that so many academic experts feel pressured to publish (or not to publish) their findings depending on what is profitable for an industry is a very serious problem and shows a example of industry crowding out universities. Finally, the fact that the Super Committee decided that tomato paste counts as a vegetable (so that corporations can continue to sell pizzas to children despite health consequences) is an example of both government and industry crowding out the universities over a matter that ultimately should be in the realm of academia.

The solution proposed, which should end not only many of the sustainability problems currently existing but also prevent further problems from coming about, would be an alteration of this triple helix model. Somebody needs to moderate the triple helix and decide when government has made a damaging policy, or when university researchers are being shut out, or when corporations are providing goods which cause social damage. As it currently stands, the three branches of the triple helix are expected to moderate themselves, which has not worked in the slightest. This is especially difficult when the sustainable solution provides no benefits to any of the three branches. There are many sustainability problems which are not profitable (no interest from corporations), which usually have high short term costs but long-term benefits (too risky for politicians) and are very disputed in scientific communities (impossible for universities to agree on a single course of action). So this "moderator" force would need to be neutral, and capable of making unpopular decisions as well as counteract decisions made by any of the three branches which threaten the well-being of our environment

The different models of The Triple Helix
A research paper titled "Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability" attempts to incorporate the role of the public into this triple helix model but they do so by creating a second triple helix. Specifically, their theory is that there is a __Sustainability Triple Helix__ of university - public - government to complement the __Innovation Triple Helix__ of university - industry - government. This approach is an attempt to incorporate the public as a branch of the triple helix without turning it into a "static rectangle" model with four different branches. It may seem a bit strange to boil down the complex large scale societal models to simple geometry however these abstract models allow us to understand the various branches of our society and thereby understand the role and influence that each one has.

The triple helix model is mainly used to look at innovation, and this model is often used to look at the relationships between government, industry and universities. This model will be used when discussing issues of research & development for industry, or for when governments need to make policies involving science and technologies. From this perspective, using the Triple Helix model to look at sustainability problems is a bit of a stretch, mostly because the public needs to be added because they become a major stakeholder who is strongly influenced by this model.

Integrating The Public into this model
Ultimately, the "twin triple helix" model does not fully grasp the full scope of society. Sustainability and Innovation cannot be treated as separate entities, and the industry is far too involved in matters of sustainability to be removed from the so-called Sustainability Triple Helix. If these two triangles are expected to work together, then they will inevitably form into a static four-branch rectangle. The approach suggested here is different. Instead of adding the public as a fourth branch, the public takes on the role of Moderator. This means that the public, whilst not existing as it's own separate entity, will regulate and preserve balance across the three branches of The Triple Helix.

The public has many advantages when it comes to the role of moderator. First, the public is a neutral party and will not be biased towards one branch when making decisions. This ensures that no single branch can become too powerful and start to put pressure on the other two. The public will not be confined by the pursuit of profits (industry), the risk of losing voters (government) or the rationality of science (universities). The public will be able to acknowledge these sustainability issues without being clouded by ulterior motives and come up with some genuine solutions to sustainability problems.

The Structure of Public Moderation
In order for this initiative to be successful, this "public moderation" initiative needs to have some sort of structure. This would most likely take the form of a committee which would have very specific powers over the branches of government, industry or universities. This Public Moderation Committee or "PMC" is not going to be a giant committee deciding things on a nation-wide basis. Instead, the PMCs would exist on a very small scale for local communities and would be funded by the municipal or other small local governments. Localized policies which take individual context into account work much better than a giant nation-wide committee which makes one-size-fits-all policies. Sustainability is best achieved by localization, not homogenization or generalization.

Members of each PMC would consist of a jury who would be responsible for the decision which are made and would be elected by members of the local community in question. Ideally, there would also be a representative from each branch would would be capable of expressing the views of the branch that they represent (i.e. an industry representative would present the views of the industry on each specific matter discussed by the PMC) however these representatives would //not// have the privilege of voting. Every single PMC meeting will be open to the public, and members of the public will be able to take an active role in the decision-making if they so chose. These PMC meeting would take place in a city hall or other authoritative place.

The PMC will have the power to override decisions made by industry (i.e. Prevent a Wal-Mart from setting up in a specific community to protect local businesses), or negate governmental policies (i.e. Override the decision that tomato paste on pizza is considered a vegetable to protect children's health). The PMC will also allow universities to discuss their findings without being pressured or censored by corporations who may lose profits because of the researcher's findings. The PMC will also allow easy communication between the three branches and also allow for members of the local community to become aware of issues that concern them. The one power which PMCs will not have is the ability to actually make policies or create innovations. PMCs are only allowed to make modifications to existing policies which are already in effect, and any attempt to create new policies goes against the original intention of the PMCs.