This is an extremely quick and dirty blog post, as I really need to be somewhere else.  But while traveling to the World Economic Forum meeting in China today, I came across a new paper that piques my interest.

The paper is by David Keith at the University of Calgary (published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science), and is a theoretical investigation of how injecting large quantities of precisely engineered particles into the upper atmosphere might provide a cost-effective tool for climate intervention – geoengineering.

The idea of using aerosol particles for messing with climate change isn’t a new one – the idea of injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more sunlight away from the earth has been around for a while.  But there were a couple of novel aspects of David’s paper that caught my attention.

The first was that he proposes engineering particles as disks a few micrometers wide and around 50 nanometers thick, that are designed to automatically congregate where they are most useful in the atmosphere – in other words, this is a beautiful case of nanotechnology meets geoengineering.

The second aspect of the paper that caught my attention was that I was working with precisely engineered particles not too dissimilar from those that David described back in the 1990′s, which got me wondering whether techniques being used then for fabrication of silicon particles could be used for the more complex particles being proposed here.

In a nutshell, David’s idea is to engineer discs around 10 micrometers across and 50 nanometers thick, with a core of aluminum, a top layer of aluminum oxide, and a bottom layer of barium titanate.  Injected high enough into the atmosphere (so Brownian motion didn’t muck things up) the discs should align with the lighter aluminum/aluminum oxide side facing up, and the heavier barium titanate side facing down.  This is important, because the way these two surfaces interact with air molecules when the particles heat up – as they would do in sunlight – means that there would be a net force pushing the discs up (photophoresis).  In effect, the particles would levitate to a stable position in the atmosphere, while keeping their shiny side to the sun – thus reflecting sunlight away from the earth (or increasing albedo).

The idea’s a lot more sophisticated than dumping huge quantities of sulfates into the atmosphere, as in principle more could be achieved with less material, and in a more controlled manner.  By engineering nanoparticles appropriately, it might also be possible to control where they go even further – by introducing a magnetic component for instance, so they follow the Earth’s magnetic field.

The idea is an intriguing one.  The science that David Keith outlines – which admittedly is broad brushstrokes science – is plausible.  The forces on discs the size he suggests should be sufficient to keep them aligned in the upper atmosphere – even when the Sun isn’t present for short periods of time.  And if sufficient quantities could be produced, they should have a measurable cooling effect.  The neat thing of course is that this is a concept that can be tested reasonably easily in the lab, using simulated atmospheres and prototype particles.  And with advances in materials manufacturing in recent years, it shouldn’t be too hard to make small batches of the discs.

Which brings me to the second reason the paper caught my eye.  Back in the 1990′s I was interested in how non-spherical airborne particles – including discs – behaved in aerosol samplers.  One particular source of particles I played around with was precisely engineered uniform discs, just a few micrometers in diameter, formed using micromachining techniques more usually used to manufacture semiconductor chips.

This was a technique described by Mark Hoover (a good colleague from NIOSH) and colleagues, and developed in the UK by Pauk Kaye.  By using suitable templates, precisely shaped particles could be etched on the surface of a silicon wafer, then floated off and aerosolized.  The result was an airborne cloud of precisely engineered discs.

[The images of these particles in Hoover et al. are copyright, but check out the figures in the paper]

Of course, Mark and Paul were using silicon as their main material.  But with modern Chemical Vapor Deposition techniques, it would be easy to use a similar technique to manufacture the particles described by David Keith.  The question then is, how expensive would they be?

In his paper, David estimates that around 10 billion kg of these nano-discs would be needed.  That’s a lot – but probably economically viable with large-scale investment in production and if the benefits were deemed important enough (David runs the figures assuming the cost of manufacture is less than 1% the cost of abating CO2 emissions, and arrives at a cost of less than $60/kg).

There is another question though, and that is the question of environmental and human health impact.  If the use of such particles was ever explored seriously – even at the laboratory scale – it goes without saying that parallel studies would be needed to understand how they might interact with the atmosphere, environment and people in less than helpful ways, and how adverse impacts might be avoided.  Here again though David Keith comes up with a thought-provoking idea:  What if the particles were engineered to have a finite lifespan, so that potential adverse impacts were minimized?  This might be done – he suggests – by designing particles that degrade over time under UV radiation and a constant assault from oxygen radicals in the atmosphere.  Safety by design in other words – an idea that has been discussed in nanotechnology circles for a while (including in the 2006 Safe Handling of Nanotechnology commentary in Nature) – but it’s good to see it being explored in this context.

At present, geoengineering the climate using engineered nanoparticles is just an idea – but it is a plausible one, and shows what can happen when different technologies and ideas begin to converge.  One to watch in the future I suspect.

This evening I was invited to talk to a group of industry leaders on alternative solutions to the “carbon” problem at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  The brief was to be one of three “firestarters” – a bit of a dangerous one if you ask me.  Given the informal setting (this was all off the record and over dinner), my comments were aimed at being provocative and challenging, and were probably more full of holes than the proverbial sieve – perfect material in other words for a blog!

For past 100 years—from the tail end of the industrial revolution, through the chemicals revolution and into the digital revolution—we have been passive observers of our effects on the planet.  Over the next 100 years, we will need to take an active role in managing these effects if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on large numbers of the world’s population.

Top of the immediate agenda (but by no means the only item on it) is global warming.  We are now so numerous and “industrious” that our actions – in this case the indiscriminate emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – are leading to planet-wide re-actions that threaten the lives and livelihood of millions of people around the globe.  Building a sustainable future will mean actively managing our role in global warming.  And critical to this is controlling the impact of carbon emissions.  We need to get a better handle on where carbon comes from, where it goes, and what it does in between.

In effect, we need to “own” the carbon cycle

The question is, how?  I’d like to suggest that owning the carbon cycle – or at least getting better at managing it – will depend on two apparently contradictory approaches: slowing down, and speeding up.

Slowing down

The carbon cycle is a slow cycle.  It takes tens to thousands of years for carbon to cycle between being released into the atmosphere, absorbed by plants and oceans, and eventually being re-released—this balloons to millennia when you include the sequestration of carbon in rocks and sediment.  And the last thing you want to do to a slow cycle is push it too hard and too fast.  The consequences are unpredictable, could be long lasting, and may well be catastrophic.

If we are to get a better handle on atmospheric carbon and its impact on global warming, we need to learn to match our “carbon speed” to the carbon cycle – to slow down our part in the process.  Not surprisingly, this means using less energy, using alternate sources of energy, and doing more with the energy we have.

The challenge is how to slow down enough to make a difference.  In part, this will depend on finding technology-based solutions to how we generate and use energy.

Conventional technologies get us some of the way to managing our energy-use and carbon emissions.  But not all the way.  We still depend in the main on non-renewable and “dirty” energy sources, and are incredibly wasteful in how we use what we have – convenience still trumps efficiency it would seem.  Emerging technologies on the other hand provide a number of solutions to slowing down our part in the carbon cycle.  For instance, we are developing LED lights that use a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs to provide the same levels illumination.  We are learning to modify the genetic code of bacteria in ways that enable them to produce biofuels from renewable and sustainable resources.  And we are constructing lighter materials, better batteries and smart energy grids that allow us to do more with the energy we generate.

Many of these emerging technologies depend on manipulating the world at the scale of atoms and molecules – the building blocks of matter.  It’s a trick we’ve been getting increasingly good at in recent years.  This area of technology often goes under the banner of nanotechnology – the science and technology of doing stuff at the near-atomic scale.  More recently synthetic biology – the science and technology of manipulating living systems at the atomic scale – has been getting increasing press.  In these and related areas, we’re making good progress.

But if we are to succeed in slowing down our part in the carbon cycle we also need new economic and social frameworks in which to operate. We need to think differently about how to develop and use science and technology effectively, and how to predict and overcome potential hurdles to progress.

Speeding up

Then there is speeding up.  It sounds contradictory, but in parallel with slowing down as we take charge of the carbon cycle, we also need to go faster.

We have already pushed the carbon cycle out of equilibrium.  This was not a smart move, as we have started a chain of events that are going to be tough to control. As a result, we need to move fast to mitigate the potential consequences of our current actions if we are to avoid long-term impacts.  Amongst other things, this means developing and implementing strategies for actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration, like other forms of active global climate intervention, is a dicey long-term strategy.  It treats a symptom rather than a cause.  Yet we are going to have to triage the planet and mitigate some of the more severe symptoms of our presence, before we can begin working on long term solutions to owning the carbon cycle.

Approaches to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere range from planting more trees, to absorbing carbon dioxide in new materials, to accelerating parts of the carbon cycle such as carbon accumulation and subsequent sequestration in marine algae.  Some of the technologies being discussed are reasonably well established; others are still over the horizon.  Many of them rely on engineering materials at the atomic and molecular scale; another reason we need to invest intelligently in developing and using nanoscale technologies.

But there are also big questions here that go beyond the science and technology: What would it take to make carbon sequestration economically viable? What are the risks—the short and long term consequences?  And what are the social and political barriers that need to be addressed to make carbon sequestration effective?  The bottom line is that although the idea of carbon sequestration is attractive, we still don’t know whether it is viable.

Part of the issue is that the challenges of intervening in planetary-scale processes are immense.  We don’t have a good sense of the consequences of scaling up attempts to actively modify the atmosphere on a global scale.  We have no idea how to do a risk analysis on a one-shot planet-wide experiment.  And we are struggling to find solutions to social, economic and political issues that transcend normally rigid boundaries.

Nevertheless, speeding up the process of managing the impacts of carbon emissions is essential if we are to ultimately develop long-term sustainable solutions to managing the carbon cycle itself.

Looking to the future

I’ve tried to be a little provocative here – I don’t think we will ever fully “own” the carbon cycle.  But I do think we need a mindset-change, where we begin to think about taking an active role in planetary management, if we are to pave the way for a sustainable future.

This mindset change must embrace slowing down—learning how to work with cycles like the carbon cycle rather than against them.

But it must also enable some speeding up – the planet needs some rapid and drastic first aid if we are going to be around long enough to implement long-term strategies.

In both cases, we won’t get very far if we don’t invest more – far more – in supporting new science and developing new technologies, and understanding how to use these in an increasingly complex global social, economic and political environment.

The bad news is that we’re not very good at using new technologies to solve global problems.  The good news is that we are fast learners when we want to be.

The question is – are we smart enough to learn how to own the carbon cycle?  Or are we destined to remain passive observers as we face an increasingly precarious future?

Ten years ago at the close of the 20th century, people the world over were obsessing about the millennium bug – an unanticipated glitch arising from an earlier technology.  I wonder how clear it was then that, despite this storm in what turned out to be a rather small teacup, the following decade would see unprecedented advances in technology – the mapping of the human genome, social media, nanotechnology, space-tourism, face transplants, hybrid cars, global communications, digital storage, and more.  Looking back, it’s clear that despite a few hiccups, emerging technologies are on a roll – one that’s showing no sign of slowing down.

So what can we expect as we enter the second decade of the twenty first century?  What are the emerging technology trends that are going to be hitting the headlines over the next ten years?

Here’s my list of the top ten technologies I think are worth watching. I’m afraid that, as with all crystal ball gazing, it’s bound to be flawed. Yet as I work on the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies, these do seem to be areas that are ripe for prime time.

Geoengineering

2009 was the year that geoengineering moved from the fringe to the mainstream.  The idea of engineering the climate on a global scale has been around for a while. But as the penny has dropped that we may be unable – or unwilling – to curb carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to manage global warming, geoengineering has risen up the political agenda.  My guess is that the next decade will see the debate over geoengineering intensify.  Research will lead to increasingly plausible and economically feasible ways to tinker with the environment.  At the same time, political and social pressure will grow – both to put plans into action (whether multi- or unilaterally), and to limit the use of geoengineering.  The big question is whether globally-coordinated efforts to develop and use the technology in a socially and politically responsible way emerge, or whether we end up with an ugly – and potentially disastrous – free for all.

Smart grids

It may not be that apparent to the average consumer, but the way that electricity is generated, stored and transmitted is under immense strain.  As demand for electrical power grows, a radical rethink of the power grid is needed if we are to get electricity to where it is needed, when it is needed.  And the solution most likely to emerge as the way forward over the next ten years is the Smart Grid.  Smart grids connect producers of electricity to users through an interconnected “intelligent” network.  They allow centralized power stations to be augmented with – and even replaced by – distributed sources such as small-scale wind farms and domestic solar panels.  They route power from where there is excess being generated to where there is excess demand.  And they allow individuals to become providers as well as consumers – feeding power into the grid from home-installed generators, while drawing from the grid when they can’t meet their own demands.  The result is a vastly more efficient, responsive and resilient way of generating and supplying electricity.  As energy demands and limits on greenhouse gas emissions hit conventional electricity grids over the next decade, expect to see smart grids get increasing attention.

Radical materials

Good as they are, most of the materials we use these days are flawed – they don’t work as well as they could.  And usually, the fault lies in how the materials are structured at the atomic and molecular scale.  The past decade has seen some amazing advances in our ability to engineer materials with increasing precision at this scale.  The result is radical materials – materials that far outperform conventional materials in their strength, lightness, conductivity, ability to transmit heat, and a whole host of other characteristics.  Many of these are still at the research stage.  But as demands for high performance materials continue to increase everywhere from medical devices to advanced microprocessors and safe, efficient cars to space flight, radical materials will become increasingly common.  In particular, watch out for products based on carbon nanotubes.  Commercial use of this unique material has had it’s fair share of challenges over the past decade.  But I’m anticipating many of these will be overcome over the next ten years, allowing the material to achieve at least some of it’s long-anticipated promise.

Synthetic biology

Ten years ago, few people had heard of the term “synthetic biology.”  Now, scientists are able to synthesize the genome of a new organism from scratch, and are on the brink of using it to create a living bacteria.  Synthetic biology is about taking control of DNA – the genetic code of life – and engineering it, much in the same way a computer programmer engineers digital code.  It’s arisen in part as the cost of reading and synthesizing DNA sequences has plummeted.  But it is also being driven by scientists and engineers  who believe that living systems can be engineered in the same way as other systems.  In many ways, synthetic biology represents the digitization of biology.  We can now “upload” genetic sequences into a computer, where they can be manipulated like any other digital data.  But we can also “download” them back into reality when we have finished playing with them – creating new genetic code to be inserted into existing – or entirely new – organisms.  This is still expensive, and not as simple as many people would like to believe – we’re really just scratching the surface of the rules that govern how genetic code works.  But as the cost of DNA sequencing and synthesis continues to fall, expect to see the field advance in huge leaps and bounds over the next decade.  I’m not that optimistic about us cracking how the genetic code works in great detail by 2020 – the more we learn at the moment, the more we realize we don’t know.  However, I have no doubt that what we do learn will be enough to ensure synthetic biology is a hot topic over the next decade.  In particular, look out for synthesis of the first artificial organism, the development and use of “BioBricks” – the biological equivalent of electronic components – and the rise of DIY-biotechnology.

Personal genomics

Closely related to the developments underpinning synthetic biology, personal genomics relies on rapid sequencing and interpretation of an individual’s genetic sequence.  The Human Genome Project – completed in 2001 – cost taxpayers around $2.7 billion dollars, and took 13 years to complete.  In 2007, James Watson’s genome was sequenced in 2 months, at a cost of $2 million.  In 2009, Complete Genomics were sequencing personal genomes at less than $5000 a shot.  $1000 personal genomes are now on the cards for the near future – with the possibility of substantially faster/cheaper services by the end of the decade.  What exactly people are going to do with all these data is anyone’s guess at this point – especially as we still have a long way to go before we can make sense of huge sections of the human genome.  Add to this the complication of epigenetics, where external factors lead to changes in how genetic information is decoded which can pass from generation to generation, and and it’s uncertain how far personal genomics will progress over the next decade.  What aren’t in doubt though are the personal, social and economic driving forces behind generating and using this information. These are likely to underpin a growing market for personal genetic information over the next decade – and a growing number of businesses looking to capitalize on the data.

Bio-interfaces

Blurring the boundaries between individuals and machines has long held our fascination. Whether it’s building human-machine hybrids, engineering high performance body parts or interfacing directly with computers, bio-interfaces are the stuff of our wildest dreams and worst nightmares.  Fortunately, we’re still a world away from some of the more extreme imaginings of science fiction – we won’t be constructing the prototype of Star Trek Voyager’s Seven of Nine anytime soon.  But the sophistication with which we can interface with the human body is fast reaching the point where rapid developments should be anticipated.  As a hint of things to come, check out the Luke Arm from Deka (founded by Dean Kamen).  Or Honda’s work on Brain Machine Interfaces.  Over the next decade, the convergence of technologies like Information Technology, nanoscale engineering, biotechnology and neurotechnology are likely to lead to highly sophisticated bio-interfaces.  Expect to see advances in sensors that plug into the brain, prosthetic limbs that are controlled from the brain, and even implants that directly interface with the brain.  My guess is that some of the more radical developments in bio-interfaces will probably occur after 2020.  But a lot of the groundwork will be laid over the next ten years.

Data interfaces

The amount of information available through the internet has exploded over the past decade.  Advances in data storage, transmission and processing have transformed the internet from a geek’s paradise to a supporting pillar of 21st century society.  But while the last ten years have been about access to information, I suspect that the next ten will be dominated by how to make sense of it all.  Without the means to find what we want in this vast sea of information, we are quite literally drowning in data.  And useful as search engines like Google are, they still struggle to separate the meaningful from the meaningless.  As a result, my sense is that over the next decade we will see some significant changes in how we interact with the internet.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of this in websites like Wolfram Alpha that “computes” answers to queries rather than simply returning search hits,  or Microsoft’s Bing, which helps take some of the guesswork out of searches.  Then we have ideas like The Sixth Sense project at the MIT Media Lab, which uses an interactive interface to tap into context-relevant web information.  As devices like phones, cameras, projectors, TV’s, computers, cars, shopping trolleys, you name it, become increasingly integrated and connected, be prepared to see rapid and radical changes in how we interface with and make sense of the web.

Solar power

Is the next decade going to be the one where solar power fulfills its promise?  Quite possibly.  Apart from increased political and social pressure to move towards sustainable energy sources, there are a couple of solar technologies that could well deliver over the next few years.  The first of these is printable solar cells.  They won’t be significantly more efficient than conventional solar cells.  But if the technology can be scaled up and some teething difficulties resolved, they could lead to the cost of solar power plummeting.  The technology is simple in concept – using relatively conventional printing processes and special inks, solar cells could be printed onto cheap, flexible substrates; roll to roll solar panels at a fraction of the cost of conventional silicon-based units.  And this opens the door to widespread use.  The second technology to watch is solar-assisted reactors.  Combining mirror-concentrated solar radiation with some nifty catalysts, it is becoming increasingly feasible to convert sunlight into other forms of energy at extremely high efficiencies.  Imagine being able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight and an appropriate catalyst for instance, then recombine them to reclaim the energy on-demand – all at minimal energy loss.  Both of these solar technologies are poised to make a big impact over the next decade.

Nootropics

Drugs that enhance mental ability – increasingly referred to as nootropics – are not new.  But their use patterns are.  Drugs like ritalin, donepezil and modafinil are increasingly being used by students, academics and others to give them a mental edge.  What is startling though is a general sense that this is acceptable practice.  Back in June I ran a straw poll on 2020 Science to gauge attitudes to using nootropics.  Out of 207 respondents, 153 people (74%) either used nootropics, or would consider using them on a regular or occasional basis.  In April 2009, an article in the New Yorker reported on the growing use of “neuroenhancing drugs” to enhance performance. And in an informal poll run by Nature in April 2008, 1 in 5 respondents claimed “they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.” Unlike physical performance-enhancing drugs, it seems that the social rules for nootropics are different.  There are even some who suggest that it is perhaps unethical not to take them – that operating to the best of our mental ability is a personal social obligation.  Of course this leads to a potentially explosive social/technological mix, that won’t be diffused easily.  Over the next ten years, I expect the issue of nootropics will become huge.  There will be questions on whether people should be free to take these drugs, whether the social advantages outweigh the personal advantages, and whether they confer an unfair advantage to users by leading to higher grades, better jobs, more money.  But there’s also the issue of drugs development.  If a strong market for nootropics emerges, there is every chance that new, more effective drugs will follow.  Then the question arises – who gets the “good” stuff, and who suffers as a result?  Whichever way you look at it, the 2010′s are set to be an interesting decade for mind-enhancing substances.

Cosmeceuticals

Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals inhabit very different worlds at the moment.  Pharmaceuticals typically treat or prevent disease, while cosmetics simply make you look better.  But why keep the two separate?  Why not develop products that make you look good by working with your body, rather than simply covering it?  The answer is largely due to regulation – drugs have to be put through a far more stringent set of checks and balances that cosmetics before entering the market, and rightly so.  But beyond this, there is enormous commercial potential in combining the two, especially as new science is paving the way for externally applied substances to do more than just beautify.  Products that blur the line are already available – in the US for instance, sunscreens and anti dandruff shampoos are considered drugs.  And the cosmetics industry regularly use the term “cosmeceutical” to describe products with medicinal or drug-like properties.  Yet with advances in synthetic chemistry and nanoscale engineering, it’s becoming increasingly possible to develop products that do more than just lead to “cosmetic” changes.  Imagine products that make you look younger, fresher, more beautiful, by changing your body rather than just covering up flaws and imperfections.  It’s a cosmetics company’s dream – one shared by many of their customers I suspect.  The dam that’s preventing many such products at the moment is regulation.  But if the pressure becomes too great – and there’s a fair chance it will over the next ten years – this dam is likely to burst.  And when it does, cosmeceuticals are going to hit the scene big-time.

So those are my ten emerging technology trends to watch over the next decade.  But what happened to nanotechnology, and what other technologies were on my shortlist?

Nanotech has been a dominant emerging technology over the past ten years.  But in many ways, it’s a fake.  Advances in the science of understanding and manipulating matter at the nanoscale are indisputable, as are the early technology outcomes of this science.  But nanotechnology is really just a convenient shorthand for a whole raft of emerging technologies that span semiconductors to sunscreens, and often share nothing more than an engineered structure that is somewhere between 1 – 100 nanometers in scale.  So rather than focus on nanotech, I decided to look at specific technologies which I think will make a significant impact over the next decade.  Perhaps not surprisingly though, many of them depend in some way on working with matter at nanometer scales.

In terms of the emerging technologies shortlist, it was tough to whittle this down to ten trends. My initial list included batteries, decentralized computing, biofuels, stem cells, cloning, artificial intelligence, robotics, low earth orbit flights, clean tech, neuroscience and memristors – there are many others that no doubt could and should have been on it.  Some of these I felt were likely to reach their prime sometime after the next decade.  Others I felt didn’t have as much potential to shake things up and make headlines as the ones I chose.  But this was a highly subjective and personal process.  I’m sure if someone else were writing this, the top ten list would be different.

And one final word.  Many of the technologies I’ve highlighted reflect an overarching trend: convergence.  Although not a technology in itself, synergistic convergence between different areas of knowledge and expertise will likely dominate emerging technology trends over the next decade.  Which means that confident as I am in my predictions, the chances of something completely different, unusual and amazing happening are…  pretty high!

Update, 12/27/09  Something’s been bugging me, and I’ve just realized what it is – in my original list of ten, I had smart drugs, but in the editing process they somehow got left by the wayside!  As I don’t want to go back and change the ten emerging technology trends I ended up posting, they will have to be a bonus.  As it is, drug delivery timelines are so long that I’m not sure how many smart drugs will hit the market before 2020.  But when they do, they will surely mark a turning point in therapeutics.  These are drugs that are programmed to behave in various ways.  The simplest are designed to accumulate around disease sites, then destroy the disease on command – gold shell nanoparticles fit the bill here, preferentially accumulating around tumors then destroying them by heating up when irradiated with infrared radiation.  More sophisticated smart drugs are in the pipeline though that are designed to seek out diseased cells, provide local diagnostics, then release therapeutic agents on demand.  The result is targeted disease treatment that leads to significantly greater efficacy at substantially lower doses.  Whether or not these make a significant impact over the next decade, they are definitely a technology to watch.

Update 12/29/09  Which emerging technologies do you thing will trend over the next decade?  Join the discussion on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

Part 9 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Writing about completing the circle of science and technology policy at the start of the Copenhagen climate summit seems particularly fitting.  Although the climate change context was far from my mind when I started this series, it stands as a stark reminder of the consequences of unconstrained science and technology, the possibilities of using science and technology to create a better future, and the daunting complexities of crafting policies that get us as a society to where we want to be.

Whether it’s dealing with climate change or innumerable other issues, the way we develop and use science and technology needs to be responsive to the challenges we face as a society, and the social, political and economic environment within which we face them.  Simply funding scientists to do what takes their fancy isn’t likely to deliver the goods in a world increasingly dominated by the three C’s – Communication, Control and Coupling.  Yet heavy-handed control of the science agenda is clearly not the answer—autonomy and open-ended research are essential to scientific discovery and innovation.

So what’s the answer?  How do we ensure our investment in science and technology as a society achieves what we believe it should, without over-indulging a science elite, or stifling discovery and innovation?  At the end of the last blog in this series I suggested that we need increased feedback in the policy process to make it work better.

Feedback loops take some of the output of a process and feed it back into the input – they’re a way of regulating a process so that it remains responsive, and doesn’t get out of control.  Of course, the business of policy is full of feedback loops.  In fact the whole political process can be seen as one rather large feedback loop – unpopular leaders and decisions usually end up being overturned, although sometimes the “time constants” are rather long.  The next two weeks in Copenhagen is a prime example of feedback in policy-making – even if this is a feedback loop with a rather large time constant.

However just because feedback mechanisms exist doesn’t mean that they are as effective as they could be…

In part 8 of this series, I proposed two feedback loops in particular that will become increasingly important to developing more responsive science and technology policy: Review and Participation.

The Review loop should be reasonably clear: It deals with comparing the actual impact of policy decisions with the intended impact, and adjusting the inputs to realign the outcomes.  This might mean altering the original goals, increasing (or even decreasing) the resources made available for specific areas, or changing the mechanisms by which those resources are used (for example).  It seems obvious, but it isn’t often done that well in practice.  There’s a fine line between too little and too much feedback, or feedback that’s fast but ill-informed and feedback that’s comprehensive but interminable!  Yet if we don’t get this balance right, it will be near-impossible to craft policies that respond to the ever-accelerating opportunities and challenges presented by 21^st century science and technology.

The Participation loop on the other hand may not be quite so clear.  This arises in to a large degree from one of the three “C’s” – communication – but is also driven by the other two – control and coupling.

Old-style “command and control” approaches to policy haven’t a hope of working in tomorrow’s hyper-connected world.  Through rapid and radical advances in global communication, people have become an inextricable part of the decision-making process – as a society, we now have a louder voice than ever before.  Policy makers can either fight this, or embrace it.

Integrating the participation of individuals and groups with a stake in science and technology into the policy process is a pragmatic necessity.  These are the people who will be affected by the outcomes of decisions made by governments, and who will become increasingly vocal – and influential – if they don’t like those decisions.  They are also a potential force for positive change – by listening to the “consumers” of science and technology, it becomes possible to craft policies which address their actual wants and needs, rather than making assumptions on their behalf.

There is also an ethical dimension here – to what extent is it appropriate for an elite handful of decision-makers to decide what is good for the masses?  Certainly, where highly complex information needs to be understood, interpreted and acted on, expert input is needed.  But broader decisions on the relevance and implications of science and technology should arguably involve the people (and organizations) who stand to benefit or suffer as a result of them.

So what are the keys and consequences to developing (or further developing) these two feedback loops?

When I gave the original lecture on which these notes are based, I identified three action-areas that will both help establish the loops, and ensure their effectiveness: empowerment, engagement and evaluation.

Empowering stakeholders

Neither of these two feedback loops will work if people and organizations are not empowered to become effective stakeholders.  This goes for expert stakeholders as well as lay stakeholders (which in most cases is people like you and me).  However, the challenges to empowering each group are different.

Lay stakeholders need to be provided with the ability to deal with the complexities of modern science and technology – and not to be intimidated by them.  Critical thinking is essential here – people need to be enabled to make sense of information, and separate out what is more important from what is less significant.  Information also needs to be accessible – in its original form (predominantly as peer reviewed publications), in non-expert syntheses, and in appropriate media coverage (and I’m including blogs here).  And importantly, the consequences of science and technology-related decisions need to be conveyed to non-expert stakeholders.  Even though many people struggle to understand the principles behind modern science and technology, most can grasp what it means to them personally if it is explained well.

Expert stakeholders on the other hand need to learn to communicate effectively, if they are to play their part in these feedback loops.  And critically, they need to learn to listen – to understand what the questions are, before providing answers.

Engaging stakeholders

This is a huge subject, worthy of several blog sites on its own (many of which already exist), and there is no way I can do it justice in a few sentences.  Yet looking at stakeholder engagement from the perspective of the two feedback loops being discussed, four points are worth highlighting:

First is the need for public discourse.  Without this, how will people know what is going on in science and technology, how it will affect them, and how they can play a part in shaping their future?  This leads directly into participation in decision-making.  Public engagement is not about communication, education or persuasion – it is about making people an integral part of the policy process – providing them with a seat at the table, where they will be listened to and taken seriously.

Effective public discourse and engagement will only be possible though if science is more completely integrated into society.  Rather than being seen as someone else’s problem, science in the 21^st century needs to be seen as everyone’s “problem.”  This will need some cultural changes if progress is to be made, from addressing educators who can’t see the point of science, to tackling politicians and public figures that undermine it, to dealing with scientists who strive to maintain their self-allotted place at the top of the intellectual pyramid.  But without changing the culture that determines science’s place within society, it will remain the realm of the elite.  And in a world increasingly dependent on science and technology, this can only lead to a Technocracy – in spirit, if not in name.

One possible approach to increasing the level of science and technology engagement is to build science and technology constituencies – groups of people with a vested interest in seeing science and technology developed and used effectively in specific areas.  The idea comes from medical research, where highly vocal involvement from non-expert stakeholders can have a huge influence on research investment, direction and application.

This approach is fraught with difficulties – the possibilities for ill-informed decisions are rife when poorly informed groups lobby for narrow areas of research to take a specific course.  But putting that aside, it’s intriguing to ask what would happen if communities were energized to be a part of research initiatives into areas like clean energy, water access, transport, food production?  What if passive lay “stakeholders” were given the opportunity to be active stakeholders, who could see a direct return on their investment in supporting and being a part of research initiatives that meant something to them?

Science and technology constituencies are a potentially dangerous idea – they take power away from the established elite for a start.  But it’s an intriguing concept nevertheless, and one that should probably be explored further.

(Re)Evaluating drivers, mechanisms and policies.

Finally, what’s the relevance of these feedback loops to people in a position to review and influence policy decisions?

In my original lecture, I highlighted three areas that policy makers and research funders should be focusing on: challenge-informed science, new knowledge stimulation, and knowledge-coupling.

Challenge-informed science. This is a bit of a hot potato.  The question of how you strike a balance between so-called blue skies research and applied research has vexed the science community for years, and at times has become extremely heated.  But rather than argue for one or the other, I would reframe the question and ask “how can we best develop science and technology policies that are socially relevant?”

Science for its own sake is essential – as I explain below.  But policy makers are accountable for how they spend a limited pot of public money.  For instance, if a country or region is facing challenges that will impact severely on peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and that could be alleviated through strategic investment in science and technology, it is hard for policy makers to argue for the bulk of science funding to go towards research that is irrelevant, which may serendipitously lead to some solutions to some future challenges, or which will lead to relevant knowledge but too late to be of any use.

Of course, the counter-argument is that it is naïve to assume that science and technology can be coerced into providing rapid solutions to challenges.  I would agree with this.  Yet at the same time, it is entirely possible for science and technology to be framed and guided—informed—by challenges (and opportunities) that society is facing now, or is likely to face in the future.  This doesn’t preclude blue skies research – but it does increase the chances of science and technology leading to socially relevant solutions.

And it should never be forgotten that practicing science is not an inalienable right – scientists (and technologists and engineers) and ultimately accountable to their patrons – who in this day and age tend to be their fellow citizens.

New Knowledge stimulation. So where does that leave blue skies research?  I would argue that there is always a justification for supporting open ended, exploratory research for three reasons:  It enriches society through raising our awareness of who we are and the universe we live in; it leads to serendipitous discovery; and it lays a foundation on which more applied research and technology innovation can be built.  It is essential to the science enterprise.  The only question is where the balance between open ended and ends-justified research should be.

I would argue that blue skies research should not dominate science and technology, except where there is a strong and specific argument for it to do so (the mega-expensive Large Hadron Collider comes to mind, where progress can only be made with substantial investment and little promise of practical return).  I would also suggest that it should be led by the most able researchers—those most capable of pushing the boundaries of knowledge.  And it should still be held accountable – even if this means communicating the more metaphysical and philosophical impacts of the work.  Blue skies research should never be a free ticket for researchers to do what they want at someone else’s expense.

Knowledge coupling. “Interdisciplinary research” is a buzz phrase that has been around for decades – often as a means of winning grants, which are then used for anything but true interdisciplinary research.  Yet it’s hard to deny that some of the more significant advances in science and technology occur at the intersections between different areas of expertise.  And it’s not only when researchers work between different scientific disciplines that innovation occurs – collaborations between scientists and engineers, social scientists, experts in the humanities and others are proving to be equally profitable.

What we are seeing is the effect of “knowledge coupling” – ensuring knowledge can flow between different fields of expertise with ease, leading to new ideas, new avenues of research and, ultimately, new advances in science and technology.  This seems to be a more useful concept than “interdisciplinary research” as it captures the essence of how knowledge and information lead to discovery, innovation and progress.  The more we can remove barriers to this cross-disciplinary, cross-expertise and cross-sector flow of knowledge, the better we will be at both stimulating new science, and using it effectively.

Pulling it all together

Developing and using science and technology effectively in the 21^st century will not be easy.  Increasingly, we’re facing “wicked problems” – problems that many stakeholders are interested in, but which remain elusive and ill-defined.  Science and technology are leading to some of these problems, but they also hold the keys to solving them – but only if we learn to use them wisely and effectively.  Integral to this process is getting the policy framework right, so that informed and effective decisions can be made.  And this in turn will depend on how the outcomes of the science and technology enterprise are fed back into the inputs – leading to policies that are responsive and effective.

As scientists, leaders, decision-makers, lobbyists and others gather in Copenhagen over the next two weeks, it will be an interesting test of how effectively science and technology policy are serving society, and how far we still have to go if we are to rise to the emerging challenges of the 21^st century.  Will we see the “nasty brutish debate with science caught somewhere in the middle” predicted by Tim Harper, or will a more mature and enlightened approach emerge?

I suspect Tim is right on this one, but hopefully he isn’t – because more than ever before we need to get science and technology right if we are to deal with the opportunities and challenges that Coupling, Communication and Control are going to throw our way over the coming decades.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.

Previously: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Next: Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/12/07/completing-the-circle-coupling-science-technology-outputs-to-inputs/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-options-balancing-effectiveness-and-safety/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-options-balancing-effectiveness-and-safety/#comments Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:50:42 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2127

An interesting aspect of today’s Royal Society report on geoengineering is the attempt to rate twelve potential approaches to engineering the climate by effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety – and to graphically compare the approaches in terms of these criteria.

While the ratings and the resulting diagram are somewhat subjective (the report’s authors call them “tentative and approximate”), they have some merit in helping make sense of a complex and uncertain bunch of data.

In the report, potential geoengineering approaches are displayed against primary axes of effectiveness and affordability.  But as the full evaluation data are available, it’s reasonably easy to re-plot them as effectiveness against “safety.”

If you do this, this is what you get:

Displaying estimated effectiveness versus "safety" for twelve geoengineering approaches. Based on data in the Royal Society Geoengineering the climate report

Showing the ratings in this way, approaches such as carbon dioxide air capture and carbon capture and storage at source emerge as options potentially combining high effectiveness with higher safety.  Increasing urban surface albedo – painting roofs while etc. – appears relatively safe in this assessment, but not particularly effective.

On the other hand, ocean fertilization, increasing sunlight reflection from deserts (desert surface albedo) and enhancing sunlight reflection from clouds (primarily by pumping cloud condensation nuclei into the atmosphere) combine low effectiveness with lower safety.

It must be stressed that this assessment is highly subjective, and will probably shift over time – as well as who rates the various approaches.  And the concept of “safety” is a rather woolly one – a high safety rating doesn’t mean “safe” – it just means that the approach is likely to have less adverse or unintended consequences than one with a lower safety rating.

Yet even with these caveats, multi-data visual presentations like this could help to weed out the less feasible geoengineering options, and ensure the focus remains on approaches that are more likely to do good than cause harm.

Source:

The plot above is based on data in table 5.1 of the Royal Society report:

Source: Geoengineering the climate. Royal Society, Sept 1 2009

Part 7 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Yesterday, I listened to respected economists discussing geoengineering; gave a Skype interview on nanotechnology from the comfort of my own home; and watched as reactions to Michael Jackson’s death spread through virtual web-based communities.  Twenty years ago, when Jackson was at the height of his artistic powers, such a day would have been the stuff of science fiction.  Now, it’s just business and usual.

Looking back over the past two decades, it’s easy to see how Coupling, Communication and Control have changed the world we live in.  The impact of CFC’s on the ozone layer, the looming global warming crisis and the associated acidification of oceans are all testaments to how recent human actions are increasingly coupled to global environmental re-actions.  Technological advances built on the back of our increasing control over matter – whether living or non-living – have led to profound changes in what we can achieve as a species.  And the global communications revolution – from the rise of the internet to the emergence of social media – continues to bend previously rigid social, commercial and geographical boundaries.

Yet important as the changes associated with each of these individual “C’s” are, it is at their intersection that their true transformative nature is revealed.  This is where ideas and influences spark off each other, leading to transformative leaps in innovation and impact…

To some extent we’re seeing this already.  Modern global communications wouldn’t be possible without a whole raft of technological breakthroughs.  Our impact on the environment is driven as much by our technologies and associated resource demands as by a growing world population, while solutions to the resulting consequences are technology-driven more often than not.  And worldwide responses to global issues are being facilitated by increasingly sophisticated communications media.

As the overlap and integration between each of the three “C’s” grows, the rate of innovation is likely to accelerate.  Yet the place where the really transformative stuff will occur is going to be at the center – at the confluence of advances in Coupling, Communication and Control.  This is where we can expect game-changing innovations that make the impossible possible.  It’s also where we are likley to see new technologies and ideas emerge that are potentially beyond our collective ability to handle with any degree of maturity.

And this brings us to the key science and technology-driven challenge we face as we head further into the twenty first century:  How are we going to handle the powerful and transformative new opportunities and dangers arising from this confluence of coupling, communication and control, without messing things up?

In contrast to the rapid developments likely at this nexus of the three “C’s,” the inertia inherent in established institutions and ideas will resist change.  And so unlike some, I don’t think we will  adapt naturally to the challenges that are coming. Yet the result of ignoring them, assuming they are someone else’s problem, or trying to shoehorn them into outmoded ways of doing business, will most likely be social, economic and political collapse.

The alternative is to take a long hard look at what needs to be done in order to ride the coming wave rather than be engulfed by it.  From twenty years ago, today’s world would look familiar yet different.  Given the current rate of change, I suspect that the world twenty years  from now will be unrecognizable.  If we’re going to cope with the changes that are coming, we will need to learn how to change with them.  And one of the first places to start will be the policies that guide the science and technology that are driving – and will help navigate – this confluence of coupling, communication and control.

Next time: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Next: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to unite global warming “denialists” on both sides of the aisle, it’s geoengineering – the intentional planet-wide manipulation of the environment.  At least, you might be left with that impression after reading the comments following a thoughtful piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal by Jamais Cascio.

It’s Time to Cool the Planet. Wall Street Journal. Credit: Viktor Koen

Cascio describes himself as a “reluctant advocate” of geoengineering.

“Many of us who have been watching this subject closely have gone from being skeptics to advocates. Very reluctant advocates, to be sure, but advocates nonetheless.”

Fraught with uncertainty and risk as geoengineering is, he argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will not be sufficient in the short term to curb the impacts of global warming.  Rather, direct intervention is necessary to give us a bit of breathing space.

Interestingly, he does not advocate geoengineering as a technical fix to a manmade problem.  He goes to great pains to stress that he believes reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the only long-term solution to the impact of human activities on climate change.  But geoengineering could give us more time to come up with workable solutions to achieving this.

“What geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic “tipping point” events—such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost—and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster.

“Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary “stay of execution.” We will still have to work for a pardon.”

Cascio also does not shy away from the potential risks as well as the social and political challenges associated with such direct action.

“Any kind of geoengineering would also face other issues. Most prominent are the political concerns. Since geoengineering is global in its effects, who determines whether or not it’s used, which technologies to deploy, and what the target temperatures will be? Who decides which unexpected side effects are bad enough to warrant ending the process? Because the expense and expertise required would be low enough for a single country, what happens when a desperate “rogue nation” attempts geoengineering against the wishes of other states? And because the benefits and possible harm from geoengineering attempts would be unevenly distributed around the planet, would it be possible to use this technology for strategic or military purposes? That last one may sound a bit paranoid, but it’s clear that any technology with the potential for strategic use will be at the very least considered by any rational international actor.

“There are also more mundane questions of liability. If, for example, South Asia experiences an unusual drought during cyclone season after geoengineering begins, who gets blamed? Who gets sued? Would all “odd” weather patterns be ascribed to the geoengineering effort? If so, would the issue of what would have happened absent geoengineering be considered relevant?”

Yet at the end of the day, he believes that, despite the very real problems associated with taking direct action, the alternatives are worse.

This is a finely written piece, and well worth reading.  It lays out the pros and cons of geoengineering in a carefully reasoned way.  It doesn’t contain much science admittedly.  But then I wouldn’t expect it to – it’s an opinion piece, and the supporting science isn’t that hard to track down.

The article also spotlights what I suspect is going to be the biggest challenge to any effective use of geoengineering – getting a disparate bunch of people across social political and geographical boundaries to work together.  I fear that, while we now have the beginnings of technologies to tackle global problems, our mindset remains too parochial to implement them wisely.  Constrained by outmoded ways of thinking and acting, we are simply too immature as a species to make good decisions on a global scale.

The answer is deceptively simple – we need to grow up.  This won’t be easy.  I’m not even sure it is possible – which doesn’t bode well for humanity.  But if we don’t find ways of making wise decisions on technology uses that potentially affect everyone, things are going to get messy.

Perhaps climate change and the threat/lure of geoengineering are the jolt we need to find innovative ways of working toegther that transcend conventional boundaries and blinkered perspectives.  I don’t know.

I do know though that progress won’t happen without innovative thinking, open dialogue and a little humility on all sides.  Jamais Cascio’s piece offers the hope that these challenges, although complex, are not beyond our reach; if only we can tackle them with the maturity they demand.

Sadly, the comments on the Wall Street Journal piece suggest we still have a lot of growing up to do.

It feels good to be ahead of the curve sometimes. About this time last year, I was slaving away painting my roof white – much to the bemusement of my Northern Virginia neighbors and friends. So I couldn’t help feeling just a little smug this morning as I read that US Secretary of Energy Steve Chu is also a great fan of roof-painting to combat global warming…

Perhaps the whitest roof in Northern Virginia

According to The Independent newspaper,

Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel prize-winning scientist, said yesterday that making roofs and pavements white or light-coloured would help to reduce global warming by both conserving energy and reflecting sunlight back into space. It would, he said, be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years.

Speaking in London prior to a meeting of some of the world’s best minds on how to combat climate change, Dr Chu said the simple act of painting roofs white could have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy used to keep buildings comfortable, as well as directly offsetting global warming by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth.

A couple of years ago, we moved into a house with no loft space – just a few inches of paltry insulation between the standard-issue dark-shingled roof and our main living area.  And in the summer, things got hot.  Really hot.  The solution seemed obvious – paint the shingles white, to reflect the sunlight and prevent any unnecessary warming.

Now painting your roof is not something that East Coast folks seem to go in for, and it took a year to pluck up the courage and act on my convictions.  But come the warm weather last summer I decided that enough was enough.  So I purchased vast quantities of Hy-Tec Thermal Solutions Insul Cool-Coat white paint, power-washed the roof (an adventure in itself), and spent three back-breaking days painting the shingles white.

I’d like to report that, in a controlled comparison, the impact of the paint was immediate and stunning.  Unfortunately the AC unit packed in half way through the painting exercise so a strict A/B comparison was out of the question – just my luck!  Nevertheless, the qualitative and quite unscientific results of the new paint were pretty impressive – the upstairs rooms in the house underwent a figurative transformation from fiery furnace to cool cave!  More significantly, the temperature under the painted shingles was some 30 degrees Farenheit lower than that under the unpainted shingles on the garage under the mid-day sun – suggesting that an awful lot of the sun’s heat was no longer infiltrating the house.

The whole point of the exercise was to reflect as much of the sun’s heat as possible, rather than it being absorbed by the previously dark roof and subsequently having to be pumped out (at considerable expense) by the air conditioning.  The paint I used also acts as an insulator.  It’s crammed full of hollow microspheres that inhibit the flow of heat through it, as well as reflect back the sun’s light.   I think it worked – certainly the new AC system seems to be under less strain in the summer, and the house feels significantly more comfortable.  But by increasing the roof’s albedo, I was also able to do my (admittedly small) bit to counter global warming by reflecting away more of the sun’s energy.

It’s not an idea that has had much traction around here – yet.  I suspect the only way I’ve got away with it is by exuding an aura of eccentricity – at least the neighbors could whisper “well, he’s British you know…”  But now that Steve Chu has enlightened the world to the benefits of roof-painting, who knows where we’ll be in 12 month’s time – forget about going green, maybe the “white revolution” will come to McLean Virginia – and I will be able to proudly say I was there first!

Of course, regular roofs are probably trickier to paint than ours, which has a reasonably low pitch.  And I suspect not everyone will appreciate the aesthetic of white shingles or (shock horror) white painted slate.  But it has to be said, as a cheap and achievable solution to a significant problem, roof-painting has a lot to recommend it – a little bit of personal geoengineering to make the earth a better place!

It just took a savvy Nobel prize-winner to let the cat out of the bag!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/05/27/steve-chus-white-revolution/feed/ 28 http://2020science.org/2009/04/08/geoengineering-goes-mainstream/ http://2020science.org/2009/04/08/geoengineering-goes-mainstream/#comments Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:51:14 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1213

Twelve months ago, geoengineering seemed little more than the fancy of science fiction writers and fringe scientists.  Now, an increasing number of people are viewing it as a viable – if extreme – option for curbing global warming.  This shift was hammered home today by Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, in his first interview since being confirmed to the office.  Given the enormous challenges presented by global warming, Holdren stated that geoengineering “…has got to be looked at. … We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

Holdren is right.  The coupling between people and the planet is now at the point where radical action is needed to avoid a shift in climate that could have a catastrophic impact on society. And while conventional technologies might suffice in the short term to bring carbon dioxide levels down and otherwise manage global warming, they will eventually  run out of steam…

Emerging technologies are going to take some time to mature to the point at which they can play a major role in combating global warming.  Joseph Romm for one is highly skeptical of the role that “breakthrough technologies” will play over the next fifty years.  But at some point they will be essential.  And as long as the innovation pipeline remains full, they will begin to provide new solutions to the challenges being faced.

This maturation of emerging technologies is already being seen with geoengineering.  The past few years have seen a number of technologies mature to the point where “tinkering” with the environment on a grand scale is looking increasingly feasible.  But it is the audacity of scientists and engineers who have suddenly realized “we can do this” that is really driving the rapidly growing field.  On the back of relatively small advances in science and technology, experts are suddenly beginning to think “this isn’t science fiction – it might actually work!”

This could be good news for future generations, but there are tremendous challenges ahead.  Clearly, there is the challenge of developing and deploying engineering projects on a massive scale.  But just as serious are the ethical issues that need to be grappled with.

Back in January, I asked the question “Does geoengineering need a dose of geoethics?“  I cautiously suggested it might be a good idea, before things move along too far.  But discussions around geoengineering are now moving so fast that I would say deep and inclusive discussions of what is right and what is appropriate are essential, and needed urgently.  The problem here is not so much that geoengineering is a bad idea, but that there is an awful lot that could go horribly wrong.

Think about it for a moment:

• The history of environmental interventions is not good (in fact it is almost uniformly bad) – what guarantees do we have that geoengineering will fare any better?
• There’s a good chance that major geoengineering projects will be the equivalent of one-shot hypothesis driven science.  In other words, while scientific progress usually relies on a process of getting things wrong and learning from the mistakes (more fancily known as “hypothesis testing”), tinkering with the planet won’t afford us too many second shots.
• The earth’s environment is non-linear and out of equilibrium – tinkering is more than likely to lead to unexpected consequences.
• Geoengineering solutions will cross national boundaries, requiring many groups to be involved in decision-making – unless individual countries decide that the dangers of not acting are so severe that accepted ethical practices don’t count.
• This leads on to the questions of “who pays,” “who benefits,” and “who pays the price?”  Failure to resolve these early on will create a huge global problems.
• Finally, the social and ethical consequences of causing harm through intervention are very different from those associated with harm that results from  inaction.  Thus geoengineering interventions that go wrong may potentially end up having a far more profound impact on society than changes in climate which the interventions were aimed at mitigating.

If geoengineering is to be taken seriously – as I think it should – these and other issues must be on the table at the very beginning of the process.  Because without the appropriate “geoethics” framework, the odds are less than favourable for us getting it right.

The worst that could possibly happen is that geoengineering is used as a last ditch, deparate attempt to correct an already out of whack environment.  Because in reality, “last ditch” usually equates to just “last.”  The way round this is to ensure that discissions are not only informed by the best science and technology, but also underpinned by broader social and ethical considertions, from the get-go.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a reasonable chance of this happening.

Part 1 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

We live in a crowded, science and technology-dependent word.  And things aren’t getting any better!  The global population is currently around 6.8 billion.  Over the next four years it’s projected to grow to over 7 billion.  And by 2050, the US Census Bureau estimates there will be over 9.5 billion men women and children on the planet; all of them expecting food, water, shelter, and a first world standard of living.  The only way such demands can be met—if indeed they can be (and it’s a big “if”)—is through the increasingly sophisticated and strategic use of science and technology.

The level of scientific knowledge and technological ability that exists now underpins modern society.  Remove it, and things collapse.  But what is less obvious is that science and technology need to continually develop in a changing world.  As new challenges, needs and wants arise, we need a steady stream of new knowledge and new technology innovation.  Without science progress and technology innovation, our ability to sustain a healthy global society will not keep pace with the challenges to achieving this.

Of course, this is nothing new.  Science, technology and society have been intertwined for tens of thousands of years.  Homo sapiens are tool-makers and tool users—technology is in our blood.  Our history is one of progression through technology innovation—from early tools, to husbandry, to the industrial revolution and on to synthetic chemicals manufacture, nuclear power, semiconductor fabrication, and so on.

Some would say we’ve done pretty well out of this fascination with science and technology.  And by all accounts we have.  On a global scale, life expectancies are longer and quality of life is higher than ever before.

But this isn’t necessarily a sustainable trend.  With a growing population, dwindling resources and increasing demands on them, the pressures on science and technology to deliver the good are mounting.  At the same time, the world is changing in ways that could well stretch established approaches to ensuring adequate science and technology innovation to breaking point.

Take for instance the rate at which knowledge and ideas are now spreading, crossing boundaries, and influencing people. Or the increasingly strong links between human actions and environmental re-actions. And how about the ability of scientists to bend the material world to their every whim, even down to the scale of atoms and molecules?  In each of these cases, we are achieving more now than ever before in human history.  And the rate of progress is accelerating.  Separately, they challenge the effectiveness of conventional approaches to using science and technology in the service of society.  Together, they could well shake things up so much that established ways of doing things are no longer responsive to society’s needs.

These are the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control.  Communication: the flow and influence of information and ideas between people and institutions.  Coupling: the ever-closer relationship between society and the Earth.  And Control: our rapidly developing ability to control our surroundings from the atomic level through to the planetary scale.  Over the next few blogs in this series I will be talking about each “C” in more depth, and how together they potentially change the game when it comes to science and technology.

Next up: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

Notes

“Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century” is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Next: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

[3/19/09 correction - when the page was initially posted, it listed the third blog in this series - on communication - as being next]

Like it or not, society is dependent on science and technology.  The only way we can cram 6 billion people plus onto the earth and use resources at the rate we do, is through the support of scientific discovery and technology innovation.  Take our technology-based infrastructure away and civilization as we know it would collapse.

Perhaps more worrying, our dependency on science and technology is accelerating.  The world’s population continues to grow, lifestyle expectations are going up, and supporting technologies are becomes increasingly sophisticated.  But this “progress” can only be sustained through increasing the rate with which new discoveries are made and new technology innovations are implemented.

At some point this cycle of technology addiction probably needs to be broken if society is to avoid a rather nasty crash.  But I suspect that such a crash is some way off yet.  And it is entirely plausible that the solution for avoiding such a crash will itself arise from technology-based innovation.

Which means that if global society is to continue to mature and prosper, we have to get the whole science and technology enterprise right.

The only alternative is to face a radical “recalibration” of society, leading to a population level and demands on resources that are more in keeping with the Earth’s load-carrying capacity.

Assuming that we want to avoid a rapid and potentially catastrophic reduction in the world’s population, we need to ask whether the way we currently “do” science and technology is good enough.  And if it isn’t what needs to change?

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is going to be the subject of a series of blogs over the next few weeks—I’m afraid this is only the teaser!  I’ll be drawing on a recent lecture at the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University, which means that if you want a heads-up, you can always browse through the slides [PDF, 8.9 MB].  But I should warn you that the story might not be that clear from the slides alone.

This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be aiming to publish a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.  First off will be the framing the problem, and introducing the “three C’s”—look out for it over the next week.

In the meantime, here’s the abstract from the original lecture, to whet your appetite:

As we move further into the 21st century, we are facing a confluence of three factors that will shake up the interface between society and science.  Nanoscale science and technology are enabling unprecedented control over matter, allowing living and non-living systems to be manipulated and used in radical new ways.  Innovative new approaches to communication and networking are facilitating the emergence of virtual partnerships that transcend geographical, organizational and social boundaries.  And society is now so closely coupled to the biosphere that our actions are stressing the system to a greater extent than ever before in human history.

This confluence of control, communication and coupling raises major challenges for society in the 21st century.   But it also contains the seeds of effective solutions.  However, to nurture and grow these seeds, new approaches to science and technology innovation will be needed.  These will include developing research agendas that are driven by social challenges, engaging citizens through building constituencies, and cultivating scientists with a clear sense of civic responsibility.

Update: The full series of posts on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century can be accessed here.

Given the recent surge in 2020science readers (thanks to Lon S. Cohen at Mashable), I thought it about time I did a short retrospective—a taster for the type of stuff you can expect to read here.  So here are five pieces from the past year that cover everything from nanotechnology to synthetic biology, and ethics to the trials of being on the scientific meeting circuit—all from the perspective of emerging technologies.

Enjoy!

Asbestos-like nanomaterials – should we be concerned? It seems that when the possible downsides of nanotechnology are broached, it doesn’t take long for the “A” word to surface.  But what is the truth—if any—behind comparisons between nanomaterials and asbestos?  From January 2009.

.

Nanotechnology—In bed with Madonna? How do you squeeze Madonna, John Kerry, nanotechnology and Elle magazine into the same blog?  With difficulty is the correct answer I think, but somehow they all managed to appear together in this piece from April 2008.

.

.

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture. What the heck is synthetic biology, is “biopunk” a real word, and are the 21st century equivalents of computer hackers going to reconfigure life as we know it?  I can’t promise any easy answers, but hopefully this post from June 2008 helps set the scene.

.

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009.

.

.

Enough meetings already! Ever get jealous of the scientific jet-set, swanning between “prestigious” speaking engagements in exotic places?  Don’t bother—the reality is far from glamorous, as this post from May last year tries to capture.  Fortunately, there are occasional compensations, albeit in unlikely forms!

.

It’s been a big week for geoengineering.  First there was the news that the world’s largest geoengineering experiment to date is about to start in the Southern Ocean.  Following close behind was a new study on how geoengineering projects could potentially impact global climate change, ranging from covering vast tracts of desert with a reflective coating to suspending giant mirrors in space.  And today sees the publication of a new paper in the journal Nature indicating that, while fertilizing oceans with iron compounds can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sequestration rate is far lower than previously estimated.

Reading through these and other accounts, it seems clear that the deliberate modification of the Earth’s environment on a vast scale is rapidly moving from the realms of fantasy to those of possibility.  Almost overnight it seems, geoengineering has become respectable.

Climate change is largely responsible—it has hammered home the message more than anything else perhaps that humanity is now able to influence the environment on a global scale.  Just the sheer magnitude of the possible impacts of global warming has made people think seriously about countering the effects through mega-engineering.  And the simple realization that our actions can make a difference to the global environment has contributed to an intellectual leap of imagination; scientists and engineers now have the audacity to think “yes we can” when it comes to countering anthropogenic climate change with engineered interventions.

This would all be wishful thinking though if it wasn’t for rapid advances in science and technology that are underpinning the emerging “yes we can” geoengineering mentality.  Although its early days still, scientists and engineers are beginning to develop the understanding and tools to put grand schemes into place, and start playing around with Earth’s systems on a global scale.

This confluence of need, awareness and ability is bringing new vigor to geoengineering.  And it’s hard to deny that its exciting stuff. … Imagine, at the very point where humanity begins to push the boundaries of sustainable existence under existing conditions, we develop the means to conform our global environment to our needs—inverse-evolution if you like.  We discover that science and technology give us a lever large enough to shift the world, metaphorically speaking.  We find that by controlling matter at the nanoscale, we can bend it to our will at the megascale.  In short, geoengineering appears to be humanity’s right-of-passage to planetary maturity.

But back up just a minute.  It seems there is something missing here.  Sure, we have the imagination and the ability to change things on a global scale.  But these abilities seem to far outstrip our understanding of their consequences.  It almost seems that scientists are in danger of applying the hypothesis-driven science of the laboratory to the whole world, while forgetting that when the hypothesis fails, there aren’t too many options to go back and start again.  And in the clamor to find technological fixes to technology-driven problems, it sometimes appears that we’ve forgotten to ask what we should do, as well as what we can do.

If we are going to get geoengineering right—and I think in the long-run it is as important as it is inevitable—we are going to need some serious ethical input to its development and application.  And while I generally avoid artificially slicing and dicing ethics, I think it would be no bad thing to further develop the idea of geoethics, as dealing with the appropriateness of decisions that affect societies on a global scale, and possibly over many lifetimes.

Of course, the concept of geoethics isn’t new—it’s been around in one form or another for decades, usually in the context of general anthropomorphic environmental impacts.  But to my mind the potential impact of geoengineering is such that it is going to need it’s own ethical framework that enables people to agree on a wise course of action.

Certainly, geoengineering raises many tricky issues.  For instance, we are still a long way from understanding and predicting the behavior and interactions of global systems, over short, medium and long timescales.  Interfering with systems we don’t understand is likely to lead to unanticipated consequences on a global scale.   And history has repeatedly demonstrated that simplistic interventions in environmental/ecological systems lead to adverse unintended consequences. On top of this, global interventions will have global impacts, meaning that great care needs to be taken in ensuring groups affected by potential outcomes are a part of the decision-making process.

These and other questions suggest to me that it’s worth developing the area of geoethics to apply specifically to geoengineering.  I’m not the first to propose this.  Perhaps the clearest articulation of geoethics in the context of geoengineering is Jamais Cascio’s article on Worldchanging.com from 2005.  Here’s what Cascio proposed as a definition back then:

“Geoethics is the set of guidelines pertaining to human behaviors that can affect larger planetary geophysical systems, including atmospheric, oceanic, geological, and plant/animal ecosystems. These guidelines are most relevant when the behaviors can result in long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes in planetary systems, although even transient, local and superficial alterations can be considered through the prism of geoethics. Geoethical principles do not forbid long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes, but require a consideration of repercussions and so-called “second-order effects” (that is, the usually-unintended consequences arising from the interaction of the changed system and other connected systems).”

He follows this with a set of core principles, which I’m not sure I entirely agree with (you can read them here).  Nevertheless, it’s a start.

Admittedly, there are international guidelines and agreements in place that already cover the responsible use of geoengineering to a certain extent.  Included in these is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which cautions against ocean fertilization (for instance)—a key geoengineering approach to sequestering carbon dioxide.  But what exists currently isn’t sufficient to engage people around the world in an integrated and informed debate over how to proceed appropriately.

The start of the Southern Ocean fertilization experiment was surrounded in controversy this week, but it went ahead anyway.  Even though it involves releasing six tons of iron over 300 square kilometers of ocean, it is a triflingly small experiment compared to what could be on the books in the near future.  If the global community are to get their heads around what is right and appropriate before the next big Earth-experiment comes along, now might be a good time to start working on geoethics for geoengineering—before it’s too late.

_________________________________

Note

For a good primer on various proposed geoengineering projects, and their possible impact on global warming, I would strongly recommend the just-published paper by Lenton and Vaughan; “The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options” (Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 9, 2559–2608, 2009).

Update, 1/29/09:  Alexis Madrigal’s article “Scientists Rank Global Cooling Hacks” on Wired Science provides an excellent distillation of the key information in the Lenton and Vaughan paper.  You also have to wonder – from the title of the piece – whether we need to start thinking about an emerging “geohacker” community!