It’s barely a month since Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place” and already there has been widespread discussion over what this rightful place might be—spurred on in no small part by science and technology provisions in the recently passed stimulus bill. Not surprisingly, the role science should play in 21st century society has been an important part of this discussion. And one of the more insightful pieces has come from Harvard professor Sheila Jasanoff, writing for Seed Magazine…
I last wrote about Jasanoff’s work in December last year, anticipating a sharp change in science policy direction with the incoming administration. “A “manifesto” for socially-relevant science and technology” revisits her 2003 paper “Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing Science,” published in the journal Minerva (and downloadable here). In this seminal paper, Jasanoff explored new approaches to decision-making that “seek to integrate the ‘can-do’ orientation of science and engineering with the ‘should-do’ questions of ethical and political analysis.” Her work led to the concept of technologies of humility—“social technologies” developed around a framework that poses “the questions we should ask of almost every human enterprise that intends to alter society: what is the purpose; who will be hurt; who benefits; and how can we know?”
While Jasanoff’s work on technologies of humility was highly influential amongst social scientists—more so in Europe than the US it must be said—it gained very limited traction in US policy making. This was undoubtedly due in part to political ideologies in vogue at the time. But it probably wasn’t helped by the scholarly tone of the work, which would have appealed to academics more than policy makers.
However, six years on, and things have changed—sound science and technology policy are back in fashion, Jasanoff’s ideas have had time to mature, and this time round she’s writing for a broader audience in a more accessible format.
“The Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy,” published February 17 on the Seed Magazine website, presents a clear vision of the interplay between science and society, and the need to understand and manage the relationship between the two if real progress is to be made. It’s a challenging piece, and will no doubt rub more than a few readers up the wrong way. Indeed, Jasanoff acknowledges that the questions she raises “will raise hackles and temperatures because they are both hard and pervasive.” But she makes it clear that, now more than ever, tough and even uncomfortable questions will need to be grappled with if an appropriate ad productive relationship between science and society is to be reached.
Jasanoff starts by recognizing the pervasive and essential presence of science and technology in society, and applauds Obama’s commitment to science. But she cautions,
“many have interpreted [the new administration’s] moves as welcome signs of Washington’s renewed respect for science, and they are right to do so. But if understanding stops there, then we’re in trouble. For the restorative steps Obama has taken vis-à-vis science are praiseworthy not so much because they respect science as because they respect the grand institutions of democracy.”
A problem here, Jasanoff suggests, is that the tendencies of modern science do not always converge with the aims of democracy. And as a result,
“simply throwing more money at science, or even listening to the best-qualified scientists for policy advice, may not ensure that research and development are conducted for the public good.”
This is strong stuff, but important nevertheless. Interestingly, Jasanoff is particularly concerned with how closely science has become linked to special economic and political interests. This is somewhat complex ground, as high-level science policies in the US have favored investigator-drive “basic research” for some time, on the (outmoded) assumption that knowledge generation will naturally trickle down to innovation. Yet the reality is that scientific progress is directed by various drivers and motivators—economic return being amongst them—and in the absence of a clear research and development strategy, these can seriously undermine both the generation of knowledge for its own sake, and the generation and use of strategically relevant knowledge. And in this context, the conclusion Jasanoff draws is spot on—that we need a carefully balanced portfolio of public science, which combines curiosity-driven research with mission-driven studies.
Moving through the need to revise current intellectual property laws and practices and open up the public debate on science and society, Jasanoff goes on to challenge the role of science as “speaking truth to power” in society. Instead, she suggests that
“rather than claiming the rarely attainable high ground of truth, scientific advice should own up to uncertainty and ignorance, exercise ethical as well as epistemic judgment, and ensure as far as possible that society’s needs drive advances in knowledge instead of presuming to lead society.”
This is classic Jasanoff, and reflects much of her thinking on science, society and humility. It’s a bold statement of how we should be thinking about the relationship between science and society. But it is also a challenging one. Jasanoff continues,
“Such humility requires experts to sometimes bow to others who are less technically informed, but subordinating expert preference to democratic priorities may be a tough act. The roots of resistance run deep. They are grounded partly in the innocent, wishful, antiquated notion that science would be apolitical if only it could be left alone.”
But of course the irony here is that, as Jasanoff points out, science neither wants to or can be left out of the political process. If you want proof of this, just check out the science lobby in Washington DC! And as she goes on to argue, simplistic dichotomies between science and technology, and how they are used, have little place in the 21st century. Instead, a rather more clear understanding of what it means to scientific and technological development to democratic ends is needed.
The way forward, argues Jasanoff, is through a “Second Enlightenment”
“Finding the rightful place for science … demands a Second Enlightenment. This time, we do not need to overthrow the false gods of superstition or the self-serving autocracies that thrive by creating their own reality. This time, like the fox of Greek philosophy, we already know a great many things about how to examine life, harness energy, measure society, create incentives, and use statistical evidence to support rational public decisions. Nor should we hesitate to learn more. But do we, like the hedgehog, also know the big things? What makes for human happiness? Which manipulations of nature are we too ignorant of to safely undertake? When might attempts to enhance human capabilities bump against deeply held beliefs about the value of being human?”
The Second Enlightenment must be, according to Jasanoff, the enlightenment of modesty; based on the skeptical, questioning virtues of an experimental turn of mind, and accepting that truth is provisional, that questioning of experts should be encouraged, and that steps forward may need corrective steps back.
Here, she re-articulates the ideas behind the notion of technologies of humility, but in a manner that is much more accessible and compelling than in the 2003 paper.
Jasanoff’s Seed essay is an important contribution to the debate on how the relationship between science and society needs to be rethought and developed. It is challenging. It is controversial. And I’m sure many readers will disagree with parts of it at least. But it is insightful, and raises ideas that many will find attractive.
More importantly, it puts us on a route to integrating science into society in a way that will benefit all in the long turn. Whether we end up with a Second Enlightenment or not, Jasanoff’s ideas should be listened to carefully and taken seriously.
(And just in case you are wondering what all this has to do with foxes and hedgehogs, you can reach intermediate enlightenment here ☺)
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Related posts:
{ 2 trackbacks }