Not in the technical sense I’m afraid, but thought it would be fun to post this image of nano-branded M&Ms.  They were used as part of a recent NanoDays session with local school kids exploring the broader implications of nanotechnology.

The only substantive link they have with real nano-enabled products as far as I can tell is the cost – they’re not cheap!

Here’s an introduction to the “wonders and worries of nanotechnology” that I think is rather brilliant:

It’s part of a series being produced by the Science Museum of Minnesota for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education network (NISE Net). The series is designed to stimulate discussions addressing the societal and ethical implication of nanotechnology – but in an accessible and non-threatening way.

Keep your eyes peeled for further episodes with Mindy and Denny – having read through some of the draft scripts, I think you will enjoy them!

Another product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students.  This is a video from Gracie Trinidad, and explores the frisson between superstition and science through medieval paintings – with a contemporary twist at the end [make sure you watch to the very end of the video for the final quote].

A product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students.

The task was to explore the confluence between mundane and catastrophic risk, which the team does beautifully.  Love the technique, and the subtle touches (note the progressive effect of Rhino Bananas on their creator).  And the news/web mockups are priceless.  Brilliant!

[Make sure you watch to the quote at the end]

Many thanks to:

• Chad Warhola
• Janae Adams
• Anirudha Rathnam
• Sarah Kang
• Alejandro Mendoza

(Needless to say, this is a bit of speculative fiction!)

Last semester, speculative designer James King worked with myself and a small group of science and public health students at the University of Michigan to explore how a fusion of science and creative art can lead to new insights and modes of communication.  The exercise was part of the A World of Surprises project – a project James is working on as the Witt Artist in residence at the UM School of Art and Design.

Part of the aim was to take these science-grounded students out of their comfort zone, expose them to some radical new ideas and perspectives, and see what happens.

The results were impressive!  Once the students realized that they weren’t bound by the rigid limitations of their science education, they became enthused over using creative techniques to tell science-grounded stories that connected with people on a far deeper level than just the facts would allow.

Today the group presented the fruits of their final assignment: to produce a piece of creative work that captures the tension – in narrative form – between imagined catastrophic risks and experienced mundane risks. As a group, we were interested in the tension between the catastrophic consequences often imagined to arise from human endeavors, and the mundane reality that often develops.

I’ll try to showcase all of the projects over the next few weeks.  They were all, in their own way, quite brilliant.  Coming up in future posts there will be:

• The Tale of Rhino Banana (a brilliant story of a technological breakthrough that runs up against public resistance);
• Salutary lessons from the struggle between evil and the divine in the middle ages;
• A visual juxtaposition of comparative risks related to Fukushima; and
• A new-future story of technological sophistication and mundane consequences.

(I’ll add the links as they are posted – The Tale of Rhino Banana will be up first)

James will be back in Ann Arbor for the culmination of the A World Of Surprises project in March – stay tuned on that.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/02/04/exploring-speculated-catastrophe-and-mundane-reality/feed/ 2 http://2020science.org/2011/12/19/metaphorically-speaking-its-photo-caption-time/ http://2020science.org/2011/12/19/metaphorically-speaking-its-photo-caption-time/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:54:20 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4509

A question for you: How many science literacy/communication/engagement metaphors can you see in the photo below?

Answers on a metaphorical post card in the comments area below please – I’m really interested to see what you come up with!

The photo by the way is the header image for a student science blog that will be launching in January – I’ll be writing more about that in a couple of weeks.  The blog is called Mind the Science Gap, and is designed to improve the science communication skills of public health masters students.

A guest blog by Craig Cormick.

Over the past decade there has been a significant growth in public engagement activities relating to nanotechnology and when you look across all the data being generated you can learn a lot about how the public view the risks and benefits of the technology. That’s probably not news for anybody who follows this blog. But what might be news is to look closely at who is driving these engagements. Is it the public? Generally no.

The majority of the public are still rather unengaged on nanotechnology, and tend to think it’s all rather good (not including food). Media coverage is predominantly positive and concern-stories don’t get much traction. And yet there is a lot of funding going into public engagement of nanotechnology – so engagement has to happen.

The premise behind most government funding of nanotechnology engagement world-wide is that we need to avoid a replication of what happened with Genetically Modified Foods, and so the errors of that public debate need to be addressed early in the nanotechnology debate. But is that a valid premise? Nanotechnologies and Genetic Modification (GM) technologies, while similar in some ways, are significantly different too. Most importantly GM technology was a “black hat technology” (which was its starting position in the publics’ eyes, as a risky thing, and there was little impact that positive information and engagement campaigns had on that) while nanotechnology is a “white hat technology” (and likewise negative information campaigns are having little impact on changing its initial perception of being more beneficial than risky).

So now let’s look at the engagements that are happening and who attends them. The majority of activities involve bringing a range of experts and the public together in some manner, or bringing lay publics together, to discuss nanotechnology issues, with research being conducted into what and how and why the public react to the engagement activity. That’s all good, and activities are getting better and better at developing two-way learnings. But there are publics and there are publics, and most engagement activities recruit people who self-select to attend, and as a result are more likely to represent those with some interest in the technology or its impacts already. So you could argue that a lot of activities are engaging with those people who least need to be engaged with, as they are already engaged.

So issue number 1: Most engagement activities favour the engaged, and there are not enough methodologies to engage with the broader unengaged people in our communities.

That brings us to the types of engagement activities happening. A useful GM analogy to use here is the difference between laboratory trials, greenhouse trials and field trials. Many nanotechnology engagements are the equivalent of laboratory trials – being conducted in artificial environments (focus groups, deliberative dialogues and citizens juries) that, while providing useful data, might not be easily transferable to the real world.

There are other engagements that we might consider greenhouse trials, such as online forums, café scientifics and so on, that are much closer to the real world that most people live in, but still aren’t quite it.

Then there are some good examples of engagements that are what we might call field trials (community group meetings and shopping center interviews), but not many.

Issue number 2 is the need to find engagements that replicate real world experiences as much as possible for the broad unengaged publics, both to allow research into real world experiences, and to provide modelling that people might be able to transfer to their homes and work places etc.

And this raises issue number 3, which is that while there is an expectation that people who take part in engagement activities – whether they be laboratory experiments, greenhouse trials or field trials – they will take their new knowledge or attitudes and go forth and multiply it within the broader community, there is very little data to demonstrate whether this actually happens or not.

So while it is useful to pool all the research data being obtained and make meta-analysis of the findings, as happens regularly, it might be more helpful at the moment to look for gaps in the data and then find ways to fill them. And that, I suggest, is the next major challenge not just for those undertaking public engagement activities, but for anyone seeking an effective way to come to good understandings of how the broad public actually relate to the risks and benefits of new technologies.

Dr Craig Cormick is Manager of Public Awareness and Community Engagement within the National Enabling Technologies Strategy in the Australian Department of Innovation.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/11/25/a-few-small-issues-about-public-engagement-on-nanotechnology/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/11/16/didnt-get-a-reply-to-your-email-this-might-be-why/ http://2020science.org/2011/11/16/didnt-get-a-reply-to-your-email-this-might-be-why/#comments Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:47:32 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4473

You sent me an email and didn’t hear back?  This might explain it:

OK so it’s not a serious decision chart.  But it’s beginning to look increasingly attractive!

I always have the best of intentions when it comes to keeping up with my email correspondence.  But increasingly I find myself struggling to keep up. The problem isn’t so much the volume, as the expectations.  I have a constant stream of email asking me for stuff – presentations, reviews, advice, comment.  Each request is important to the sender I’m sure.  But if you are asking me to do something that I’m not directly paid to do, doing what you ask means that I to sacrifice something else to respond.  And that inevitably ends up being my personal time, family time, meal time or sleep time.

That said, I don’t begrudge people asking me to do things for them, and I usually try and accommodate requests. But if you have sent me an email that seems to have disappeared into a black hole, the chances are that it has been swamped by hundreds of others like it, or I had to decide whether to spend time with my wife and kids or with your request.  And if it was really important, there’s never any harm in resending!

Note: In the “Is it from someone important?” box, I should point out that this includes family and friends!

Blockbuster movies aren’t usually noted for their scientific accuracy and education potential.  But since its release last week, Steven Soderburgh’s Contagion seems to be challenging the assumption that Hollywood can’t do science.

The other day I posted a piece about how director Steven Soderburgh and screenwriter Scott Z Burns’ attention to detail and plausibility left me with a sense of optimism after watching the movie, despite its disturbing theme.  This was due in large part to the involvement of three science experts – Ian Lipkin (Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columblia University), Laurie Garrett (senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Larry Brilliant (President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund).

Larry Brilliant is well known for his work on eradicating the smallpox virus.  He was also a past Executive Director of the philanthropic arm of Google, and is currently President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund. Yesterday afternoon, I had the chance to chat with him on the phone about the movie, his involvement, and his thoughts on its importance.

What was quickly apparent in our conversation is that the idea of using film as a medium to help people better understand the threats epidemics and pandemics present is one that Brilliant has long been interested in.  While Executive Director of Google.org, he supported production of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Final Inch – a film about the historic global effort to eradicate polio. Given the success of the documentary in bringing a global issue (and public health success story) to the attention of millions of people, Larry was interested in how the medium of film could be further used – in particular to alert people to the plausible threat presented by pandemics, and the measures that are necessary to curtail their global impact.

And in Steven Soderburgh and Scott Z Burns, he found the ideal partners.

Well before he became President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, Brilliant was interested in exploring how humanity can prepare for low probability high impact events like pandemics.  As he explained, he is particularly concerned over how we go about developing expertise and resources to tackle such events, especially where short term and local thinking does little to prepare society for eventualities that demand a globally coordinated and informed response. Brilliant emphasized that devolving responsibility to local communities and private organizations just doesn’t work here – you need the resources and reach of national and international government organizations, together with long term investment in expertise and people, in order to respond rapidly and globally to a fast-moving viral infection.

But how do you get that message across – especially at a time when long term strategic measures against catastrophic risks are being ditched in favor of short term economic and political gains?

Movies, according to Brilliant, are part of the toolbox for raising awareness and helping people understand how some challenges are just too big to be privatized. Unfortunately, films that build on fantasy rather than plausibility have led to the medium being marginalized as a vehicle for science-based communication and education.  But in the case of Contagion, Larry felt that with the combination of a “brilliant” director and screenwriter, together with a cast of dedicated and engaged actors (on whom Larry lavishes praise and admiration – especially for Matt Damon and Kate Winslet), the scene was set for a movie which was was emotionally engaging yet grounded in plausible reality.

The scenario developed within the movie is clearly fictional – it hasn’t happened yet.  But as Larry noted, because of the science that went into the movie, what emerges is a series of events that are not beyond the realms of possibility – and in fact, given enough time, are highly probable. As fellow consultant Laurie Garrett wrote the other day on the CNN website,

‘Contagion’ is part reality, part fantasy, totally possible

When asked whether he was pleased with the results, Brilliant gave an unqualified and very enthusiastic affirmative.  As well as high praise for the cast and production team, he was pleased with the way that the response to the pandemic was portrayed in the movie.  As he pointed out, the White House and UN are notable by their absence.  Rather, the heroes – the people who identify, track and eventually tackle the pandemic – are government-employed public health professionals.  To him, this is a highly realistic portrayal of how a pandemic is likely to play out, and a stark warning against cutting investment in public health because of short term thinking and a potentially catastrophic lack of understanding.

At a time when public health agencies in the US are facing significant cuts, this was a key message for Brilliant. Contagion is plausible reality wrapped up in a strong narrative – to Brilliant and others, it’s not a case of if such a pandemic will occur, but when.  And what Burns and Soderburgh have done is provide us with glimpse of our best hope for surviving this eventuality – assuming we haven’t abandoned our trained and prepared public health professionals in the meantime because we didn’t have the intelligence and foresight to recognize their importance.

This is a key message that Brilliant hopes will come through loud and clear as people watch and talk about the movie.  And it’s one that he hopes will have sticking power – with the movie stimulating conversations and action for many years to come.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/09/14/contagion-plausible-reality-and-public-health-in-conversation-with-larry-brilliant/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/09/05/the-public-and-peer-review-literature-pearls-before-swine/ http://2020science.org/2011/09/05/the-public-and-peer-review-literature-pearls-before-swine/#comments Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:19:55 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4370

This morning I sat down with my 14 year old son and asked him what area of science caught his interest especially.  He answered “the future of space exploration”. We carried out a search on the Web of Science for “future + space + exploration”, and the fifth article returned was “Comparing future options for human space flight” by Sherwood Brent (Acta Astronautica 69 346-353, 2011).  We downloaded the article and he read it.  When asked, he said the paper was understandable and interesting – he was glad that he’d read it, and wanted to know where he could read more stuff like this.

There’s a myth that only people who have ready access to peer review papers have any real need or desire to read them, and it’s a pernicious myth.

George Monbiot stirred up the debate on access to scientific publications recently in his Guardian piece “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist“.  In response, Kent Anderson – a long-time publisher and editor of scientific journals – set up this straw scenario, using it to justify limited access to journal publications:

Let’s assume everyone with a beating heart is interested in cardiology topics. Let’s search PubMed for a paper on “cardiac.” Let’s take the first one we find. Let’s read the conclusion from the abstract:

Intrathoracic herniation of the liver (“liver-up”) is associated with predominant left heart hypoplasia in left diaphragmatic hernia but not right fetal diaphragmatic hernia. Our observations indicate that this difference may result from different ductus venosus streaming sites in these conditions.

So my layperson understanding of intrathoracic heart hypoplasia is vital to my ability to function in a democracy and make informed political decisions? I think I sense a herniation just from the stretch that takes to achieve plausibility.

Let’s assume I can read the whole paper. Like 99.9% of the population, I’m not going to know what to make of it. It’s for specialists, or better, subspecialists (cardiologists who specialize in neonates, I suppose). It was published early online, so it’s likely free. Most journals make their content published early online free for a limited time. We have the English abstract, but it’s a German journal. Who paid for that translation, assuming there was one?

Economics have nothing to do with accessibility of this information. Specialty knowledge is a prerequisite, and German language expertise would help.

There is no price in the world that’s going to make that scientific paper, or thousands of others, intelligible, relevant, or meaningful to me in any way that’s going to affect my ability to function in a democracy. And people who do need to see those papers can see those papers, probably know the authors, probably heard the poster session or talk at a meeting, and will know about the published report if it’s at all worth reading.

This is a shockingly disingenuous scenario – especially coming from a publisher – that seriously misrepresents that value of some publications to people who don’t have ready access to them, as well as how scientific publication tends to work these days.  It was what led to my impromptu conversation with my son, highlighting the existence of academic papers that are accessible to a broader audience.  But it also fundamentally misses the point that there are many, many people outside major academic institutions who would benefit from ready access to a broad range of peer review papers, but who are restricted by the high costs of institutional subscriptions and one-off par per view fees.

For a start, consider these groups:

Smaller academic institutions:  Library subscriptions are often limited in smaller institutions, meaning that if you want access to papers in less cited publications, or in areas outside your immediate discipline (yet still relevant to your work), you have a problem.  This is a major hurdle to interdisciplinary research.

Government research labs: The same applies here as for smaller academic institutions – subscription fees severely limit access to the broad scientific literature.

Independent research labs: Even worse.  You may have subscriptions to the big general journals (Nature and Science) and the top specialist journals in your area.  But access across disciplines, to cross-disciplinary publications and to lower impact journals, is limited.

The medical profession:  Unless you are affiliated with a large research institution, access to the peer review literature is likely to be limited to mainstream publications in your field.  Too bad if your interests are more wide ranging.

Industry:  The case is easy to make that industry should pay for access to publications.  But my experience talking with colleagues in industry has always been that there comes a point where the costs of subscriptions and one-off fees are prohibitive, even when the knowledge gleaned could be valuable.

The legal profession:  Even lawyers need access to academic papers sometimes – believe it or not!

Not-for-profit organizations: Think Tanks and NGO’s have major problems paying for access to the scientific literature, despite their work often being highly dependent on this literature.

The media [added 3:02 PM 9/5/11 - how could I have forgotten them first time!]: How are science reporters to report on the science, not just what the press releases say, without access to the original papers.  Sometimes possible, but by no means always without forking out $$

Schools: I’m not aware of many school districts that can afford broad access to the peer review literature, despite clear benefits to this for teachers and students.

The “public”:  OK so many papers are so esoteric that they will only be meaningful to a small minority of experts.  But there are also large numbers of publications that are understandable and relevant to people who’s only qualification is an interest in the world they live in.  And don’t forget that the “public” also includes people who are retired, between jobs or no longer in academic positions, but who nevertheless have the capacity to understand and benefit from highly specialized publications, and who don’t have the means to pay publication access fees.

Publishers aren’t the enemy here – wider access to the results of research is a systemic challenge that is going to require cooperation and innovation from everyone involved in the process.  But if progress is to be made, we cannot afford to kid ourselves that only the academic elite need access to academic papers, or that publications are beyond the ken of the public.

If I wasn’t at the University of Michigan, it would have cost my son $31.50 to read Brent’s paper in Acta Astronautica – he was gobsmacked when I told him!  I somehow can’t see his monthly allowance going on more articles like this – despite his clear interest in reading more.  And this is just one anecdotal example – how many more people do not have access to information that could enrich their lives, impact their community and improve society, simply because the cost of entry is too high?

I’d prefer to live in a world where my son is not prevented from reading papers that interest and enthuse him, or poor decisions are made because people can’t afford to read about research that mattered.  Public access journals, researcher-funded publications and access requirements for government-funded research are beginning to push us in the right direction.  But it seems we still have a way to go before we break down the misconception that access to peer review publications should be limited to a privileged few.

[Update 4:42 9/5/11 - I also meant to mention Martin Robbins' piece on "Open science, Freedom of Information and the Big Journal monopoly" over at The Guardian blog - worth reading in the context of pey-per-view publication]

Here’s an interesting idea – build a free iPad app that kicks off a global conversation about the future of the human species.

The Human Project is the brain child of Erika Ilves & Anna Stillwell.  At its core is a yet-to-be-built iPad app that captures the essence of humanity past and future – who we are, where we are going, and how we are going to get there.  As Erika and Anna explain:

There are so many challenges that confront the species as a whole. The ones that get a lot of press (like climate change, food & water shortages, poverty, war, overpopulation and economic crises). The ones that don’t (like comets and asteroids, extreme experiments in science, technological terror and error). The ones that we humans don’t even imagine we can solve (like mega volcanoes, mega earthquakes, nearby supernova explosions, a dying sun, an aging universe). And there are plenty of visions too (like a space-faring civilization, transhumanism, zero carbon world, general artificial intelligence, the end of poverty, universal human rights, designing life and matter, zero nuclear weapons, the end of aging).

Everything is so fragmented. Every expert claims their issue matters most. Everyone fighting for their share of attention. So few have the big picture. Nobody seems to have their eye on the species as a whole.

So why not capture the big picture in a compellingly sleek package, make it free, and watch it take off?

Sounds like a great idea.  But here’s the kicker – someone has to pay for the up-front development.  To cover this, a crowd-funding initiative has just been launched on Kickstarter – if $25,000 are raised by Sept 28, a matching $25k is put in the pot, and the project goes ahead.

If you are interested in finding out more, check out the video below or visit www.kickstarter.com/projects/thehumanprojectapp/the-human-project-app

Is social media messing up today’s teens?  Adults, it seems, love to pontificate on the benefits and ills of emerging internet-based communication platforms  on young people. But how often do they bother to listen to the teenagers they claim to be concerned about?

Well, this is their chance.

Over this past week, the members of my daughter’s YouTube collaboration channel Fellowship of the Ning have recorded their thoughts on camera, and provided a candid and personal perspective of how social media is affecting their lives.

This is essential viewing for anyone who speaks or writes about teenagers and social media.

There’s quite a lot to get through – you need to set aside some quality time to watch all the videos (remembering of course that each video maker set aside an awful lot more quality time to make these for you to watch).  And you have to remember that these are teens talking about their own concerns in their own voice to their peers – you are a guest in their world. You also have to remember that this group only represent a subset of teen internet users.

Nevertheless, the videos paint a very different picture of social media and teens that you get from many supposedly expert commentators.

By way of background, last week, my daughter Jade posted this short video, asking the channel’s subscribers to share their thoughts on social media:

She asked three specific questions:

1. Why is social media important to you?
2. How has it changed you or your life?
3. What is your response to these articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/social-networking-site-changing-childrens-brains

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-facebook-teens-20110806,0,7575848.story

[I pointed her toward the articles and talked with her about the questions, but that was pretty much the limit of my involvement here]

Over the next week, her five collaborators responded, each with their own unique style and perspective – followed by Jade’s own response.

I have my favorites of course. But without exception, each one leaves me humbled by the honesty, insight and sophistication expressed.  No-one – no-one – who talks with assumed authority on social media and teenagers should do so without first viewing these, and the many other videos out there made by teens for teens on what is important to them, and why.

Sam (USA)

Ella (UK)

Andrew (Canada)

Francisco (Argentina)

Kieran (UK)

Jade (USA, with a UK bias)

If you know of other YouTube videos of teens talking to teens about social media, please post in the comments. Thanks!

Update 8/25/11 – Link to LA Times piece now working!

If you are a teen who uses YouTube (or know of one – maybe even your own teenager), please think seriously about posting a response to this video:

(You can also watch it directly on YouTube here).

Over on the Risk Science Blog, I’ve just posted a piece about Baroness Susan Greenfield’s views on the internet and society.  Something that concerns her a lot is how the internet, gaming and social media might be affecting teenagers.  But hardly anyone it seems actually bothers to ask teens what they think.

The video above was posted by my daughter Jade on her YouTube collab channel.  She has been talking with her fellow collaborators for a while now on asking their followers for thoughts on social media and being a teenager.  I’m afraid my interest in Susan Greenfield’s ideas tipped the balance, and encouraged them to get a move on with posting the three questions in the video.

This seems like an important opportunity though for teens to talk about social media on their own terms, and in a way that will help “experts” who think they know what is going on from actually finding out what it’s like for teenagers in today’s hyper-connected world.

So please encourage anyone you know to watch and post a response.

And check back in a few weeks to see the result.

Thanks!

Would You Lick Jam Off An Old Man’s Foot Or Drink Toilet Water For An Hour? Can you explain how gravitons can escape a black hole?  Or do you have a good answer to the question “why are people annoying?”

This is just a sampling of some of the more entertaining and challenging questions from the hit UK teen science-engagement competition “I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here”.

Now, the team behind I’m A Scientist… is asking for your help to find the best question from the competition so far.

The process is simple:

1. Have a nosey around the website, and read some of the the questions teens have posed to participating scientists over the years.  If you are stuck for somewhere to start, try the questions from this June’s Brain Zone or Quantum Zone (there were 23 zones in the latest competition – don’t forget to look at some of the others!)
2. Once you’ve found a question that tickles your fancy, simply tweet the link to it, with the hashtag #iasbestQ
3. Or if you are Twitter-challenged, email the link to admin@imascientist.org.uk, with iasbestQ in the subject line.
4. And finally, don’t forget to spread the word around – the more votes for the best question, the better!

The competition closes on September 5.  The five students with the top questions will receive a selection of science books, and a highly coveted I’m A Scientist mug – just like mine in the picture below!

For further details, please check out the I’m A Scientist website.

And don’t forget to vote!

OK so this is a shameless plug for the University of Michigan Risk Science Center Unplugged series of discussions (if you’ll forgive the pun) – and specifically the live/webcast event we’re having on the health impacts of the Gulf Oil Spill on April 14.

But I actually think the series is good enough for a bit of a plug here – not that I’m bias!

Fist a confession though: I get really bored with hour-long PowerPoint presentations and talking head monologues (sometimes, even when I’m the speaker!).  More significantly, I think there are better ways of exploring contemporary issues than just watching a series of slides and listening to someone drone on.  So when we were thinking about a format for the Risk Science Center to start tackling knotty human health risk-related issues, we tried to come up with something a little different.  The thought process went something like this:

• Lets ditch slides, because they’re tedious.
• And while we’re at it, let’s avoid long expositions from dull speakers.
• Rather, why don’t we get a bunch of experts from different perspectives to discuss issues candidly…
• …in a way that’s engaging to a wide range of people…
• …with the opportunity for the audience to throw their questions into the mix…
• …and with a strong moderator to keep things on track and stop them getting boring.
• And why not make things web-interactive – with on-line resources, questions and answers, video streaming, ever a Twitter hookup?

The result was the Risk Science Unplugged Presents… series – interesting people talking about interesting stuff, without the hassles of PowerPoint.  And fully web-interactive, so that people can watch and participate, even if they are not in Ann Arbor.

I’m rather excited about the series – but then I guess I would be.  Our first one was on nanotechnology.  The next – coming up on April 14 (10 – 11 am Eastern Time) is on the human health impacts of the Gulf Oil spill – and we have a stellar lineup, including:

• The deputy Director for Program from NIOSH,
• a PI on the recently launched NIEHS GuLF STUDY,
• an MD
• and an environmental lawyer.

So please check out the series, and join us if you can on the 14th – either in person, or via the webcast.  And please spread the word around – come September we will be kicking off a new series of Unplugged events.

And just to make things as easy as possible for you, there are the key links:

• Gulf Oil Unplugged
• Webcast (live on the 14th, archived after that)
• Twitter feed (posts with the hashtag #umrscup appear here)
• Q&A (post a comment, ask a question – you know you want to!)
• Additional resources

Enjoy!

I’ve just posted this over on the Risk Science Blog, but deviously thought I would also disrupt 2020 Science readers’ day with it as well!

For the past couple of years, a highly addictive and innovative on-line teen science engagement event has been run in the UK. I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here pairs groups of scientists with classes of teenagers for two weeks, and the teens bombard them questions – about anything and everything. On each of the last four days of the event, the teens vote for their favorite scientists, and one by one the least popular are evicted. Until finally there is just one scientist left standing in each group.

It’s brutal – I’ve been there – but at the same time enormous fun, and highly engaging.

Today is the last day of the current event, and 3:00 PM UK time this afternoon the victorious winners will be revealed.

But for the spectators, a major part of the attraction of the event is reading the questions the teens pose – and seeing how the scientists handle them.

And this year, you can search for questions on specific subjects.

S0 if your day is dragging a bit, this is what I suggest:

Head over to the I’m A Scientist website and search for questions on “risk” – or just follow this link, which will take you straight there. (Don’t worry about the login box – that’s just for participants).

But be warned – you can probably kiss goodbye to doing anything else for the rest of the day, once you get sucked in!

The search function by the way returns questions from all events so far. To delve into the current event’s batch of questions and answers, head straight to the I’m A Scientist home page.

Original post: http://umrscblogs.org/2011/03/25/questions-teens-ask-about-risk/

I don’t believe it – once again I’ve let myself be talked into doing an event in Second Life.  But this time it’s even worse – I’ll be hosting a combined second life and real-life event, and in effect acting as the medium between physical and virtual realities.

The only compensation is that the subject is a really juicy one – the Seven Deadly Sins!

On March 8 – Fat Tuesday appropriately – I’ll be indulging myself talking about the Seven Deadly Sins of Techno-Complacency to a combined audience in Second Life, and in real life, here at the University of Michigan.  And just to ice the cake so to speak, it looks like we’ll be webcasting the event as well.

If you want to indulge as well, the event is from 2:00 – 3:00 PM Eastern Time on March 8 – 1655 SPH Crossroads if you are in town, or Second Life if you are not (I’ll post the webcast link later). But be warned – only the real-life crowd will be getting Deadly Sin Cupcakes (seriously)!

The blurb for the event – which as you might imagine is not going to be that straight laced – goes something like this:

Science and technology are transforming our world faster than ever before.  Yet for all our technological brilliance, are we really in control of our destiny?  Do we have the wherewithal to steer a course between a future techno-heaven and techno-hell? Or are we so caught up in our technological infatuation that we have become insensitive to the future consequences of our actions?

Inspired by the “Seven Deadly Sins” of the ancient world, Andrew Maynard takes a wry look at the challenges of using science and technology to build a sustainable future – while avoiding the “fiery pit” of techno-failure.  Among his seven deadly sins of a techno-complacent society: Sucker Syndrome, soppy thinking, and blind faith.”

If you’re interested, there’s more information available at http://slum.wetpaint.com/

And the seven sins?  They are:

1. Widget Envy. (Envy)
2. Sucker-syndrome. (Gluttony)
3. Soppy thinking. (Greed)
4. Megalomania. (Lust)
5. Techno-hubris. (Pride)
6. Blind faith. (Sloth)
7. Intolerance. (Wrath)

PS – the version of my bio being used for the event should be taken with a pinch of salt – a pinch of sinful hubris possibly crept in there somewhere in the spirit of things!

Which were the most popular 2020 Science blogs of 2010?  In reverse order, based on page views, here are the ten most-read posts:

10.  Just how risky can nanoparticles in sunscreens be? Friends of the Earth respond

A guest blog from Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato at Friends of the Earth, responding to a challenge I set them on addressing the safety of nanomaterials in sunscreens. http://2020science.org/2010/06/15/just-how-risky-can-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be-friends-of-the-earth-respond/ The post responds to this blog, and I respond in turn here.

9.  Have iPad, will travel – 48 hours on the road with Apple’s iPad

Celebrating the launch of Apple’s iPad, I try and justify its use as a serious productivity tool.  I must have bought into my own hype, because I ended up purchasing my own later in the year.  So far – no regrets!  http://2020science.org/2010/04/17/have-ipad-will-travel/

8.  Texas Instruments Graphing calculators – essential math teaching aid, or a scam?

A piece on my continuing unease over the use of graphing calculators in US middle schools.  http://2020science.org/2010/07/11/texas-instruments-graphing-calculators-essential-math-teaching-aid-or-a-scam/

7.  Lost in the Maize – First Person Shooter video games

My son’s justification as to why he should be allowed to play first person shooters (in response to this, I relented and lifted the ban!) http://2020science.org/2010/12/10/lost-in-the-maize-13/

6.  Knitting science

A slightly whimsical piece about the surprisingly rich intersection between knitting and science.  http://2020science.org/2010/07/25/knitting-science/

5.  UK House of Lords scrutinizes nanotechnology and food

British Lords apply their insight and common sense to the use of nanotechnology in food products. http://2020science.org/2010/01/07/uk-house-of-lords-scrutinizes-nanotechnology-and-food/

4.  Engaging the public on science? Surely you’re joking!

Some excellent publications from Research Councils UK on science and public engagement. http://2020science.org/2010/03/10/engaging-the-public-on-science-surely-youre-joking/

3.  Ben Goldacre, what were you thinking?!

I question some of sound science-champion Ben Goldacre’s remarks – he questions my comments, and a rare old flame-fight ensues! http://2020science.org/2010/05/01/ben-goldacre-what-were-you-thinking/

2.  Nanotechnology researchers at sea when it comes to safety

Rather than being about the safe handling of nanomaterials, this blog examined a paper in the journal Nature Nanotechnology on safe working practices, and found it somewhat wanting. http://2020science.org/2010/02/02/nanotechnology-researchers-at-sea-on-safety-issues/

1.  The secrets of engaging teens with science

Sophia Collins’ guest post on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out of Here.  http://2020science.org/2010/04/13/im-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here/ Interested in participating in the most exciting and innovative science engagement event of 2011? – you can still sign up for the next rounds of I’m A Scientist here.

More information on top blogs and viewing figures can be found on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

There’s something rather liberating about being asked to give a no-holds talk on your perspective on life, the universe and everything.  So when the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center asked if I would speak as part of their “Where do we go from here?” series, I jumped at it.

No holds barred is probably an exaggeration – I’ve been asked to talk about my perspective on what we face in the future and how we re going to handle it.  And I should probably be mindful of the audience’s sensibilities.  But even so, that’s a pretty large almost-blank canvas to work with.

And to fill this canvas, I’m going to talk about “small gods”.

Actually, I’m going to talk about risk – which is at least something I know a bit about.  But the central question here is whether we are up to handling the future.  Are we sufficiently aware of our limitations that we are able to build a better future through partnerships and humility?  Or are we merely “small gods” – people with a smidgen of power who mistakenly think they rule the world?

And as you would expect, I will be grounding this in technology innovation.  Of course, tech innovation is only one factor influencing the future.  But it is a pretty important one – there aren’t many global issues that either haven’t been enabled or exacerbated by technology innovation (WikiLeaks comes to mind as the issue of the moment), or couldn’t be handled better through a more effective use of tech innovation.

Here’s the official blurb:

Some believe human ingenuity can solve all ills. Some believe technology will transform the world. Some believe we are on the verge of creating life and bending it to our will. Some people believe we are gods. But what if we are small gods–knowing just enough to be dangerous as we flex our technological muscles? Looking to the future, we are facing some of the greatest challenges in human history. We will turn to technology as we strive to build a sustainable future–we already are. But how do we ensure the technologies we embrace do more good than harm? As we ‘go from here’ into an uncertain future, how do we avoid the temptation to act like small gods and learn to harness the power of technology for good?

And just in case you are interested, here’s the slightly longer (but not half so catchy) summary that I’ll use as my starting point:

We are at a turning point in human history.  People are more technologically capable than they have ever been. Scientists and engineers are developing a unsurpassed mastery over the building blocks of everything around us – from atoms and molecules to the DNA that defines every living organism.  Yet as a species we face unprecedented challenges – ensuring upward of seven billion people can live comfortably in a shrinking and interconnected world where food, water and energy are increasingly precious resources.  As our technological prowess is matched by the growing challenges we face, it is by no means clear over whether our actions will take us to a future heaven or hell.

How we navigate this uncertain future depends on one small, four letter word – “risk”.  In the 21st century, risk – and how we handle it – will influence everything from curing cancer to putting food on the table to enhancing human abilities.  Technologies that are just over the horizon have the potential to profoundly change our lives.  Designer life forms; while-you-wait personal genome sequencing; climate-engineering; drugs designed to make you smarter; batteries made by viruses -  these and other innovations are on their way – some are happening now.  Each has the potential to make our lives better.  But the consequences of getting them wrong are far from certain.  As we develop them, we need to ask: Are we truly masters of our universe, or are we merely small gods – with just enough knowledge to cause a lot of damage?

How we deal with risk makes all the difference.  Business as usual – and we run the danger of becoming small gods. Thinking – and acting – differently about risk, and we have the chance to build a better world.

As we move on from here into a technologically complex future, which will it be?

The talk is at 4:00 PM on December 11, at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center.

Update 12/6/10:  Got the time wrong!!  Talk starts at 4:00 PM on the 11th.

This image from the first US National Science and Engineering Festival attracted my attention this morning:

It’s a wordle constructed from responses to the question “What will be the greatest discoveries and advancements science and engineering will bring us in the 21st century?”

What grabbed my attention was the prominence of nanotechnology in the mix – is awareness of nano finally on the up?

I’m not sure who or how many people responded to the question – it would be interesting to see if the organizers have more information on this.  But assuming that this represents a fair cross-section of people who participated in the Expo, it’s a fascinating snapshot of what is uppermost in people’s minds when it comes to science, technology and engineering.

You can read more about the first USA Science and Engineering Festival here.

Complete the following:

Setting:

A well known and sometimes off-beat technology commentator explores new breakthroughs on a popular TV science and tech show.

Story:

1. Spiders’ silk is incredibly strong, but in short supply (ever tried harvesting silk from a spider?).
2. So why not take the gene responsible for making spider silk, and splice it into a goat?
3. The result: goats that produce milk laced with spider silk-protein.
4. All you have to do then is extract the protein from the milk and spin it into silk and hey presto – a plentiful supply of a super-strong, incredibly versatile, “natural” material.

How should the story end?

Take Our Poll

There’s a serious point to this question, which I’ll come back to later.  For now though, I’m intrigued as to how people think the story should conclude – remembering this is a TV show for a broad audience.

The spider/goat stuff is real btw – check out this snippet from the US National Science Foundation.

[Update 11/2/10 - the follow-up blog to this piece has just been posted]

Back in August, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published a collection of essays under the editorship of Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholster on the (seemingly) increasingly strained relationship between science and the media.  I was too embroiled in the move to Michigan at the time to pay it much attention, but a news release sent out by the Academy yesterday promoting the publication prompted me to sit down and browse through it.

At first, I was worried that this would be just another piece from scientists bemoaning the sorry state of a society that doesn’t “think right”.  This wasn’t helped by the title of the press release: “Science and the Media” Explores Challenges to Scientific Literacy in U.S. Fortunately, I was wrong.

Certainly, there are places here where there are overtones of a community frustrated by a “public” and especially “journalists” who don’t see and understand the world as they presumably should, and who don’t give due deference to experts who do understand things.  This is reflected to a certain extent in discussions around science literacy, which tend to overshadow more difficult questions of how anyone makes informed decisions about the impacts of science and technology in a complex world where multiple factors beyond just the science come in to play.  Interestingly, many of the contributors are in the business of science communication rather than science practice, suggesting that these perspectives are not limited to scientists.  But this emphasis on science contributors also gives the collection considerable value – especially as it reveals a science communication community that is far more diverse than is often thought.

The collection is short enough to read through relatively quickly at just 109 pages long.  And it’s well worth taking the time to read.  Browsing through it this morning, three essays in particular grabbed my attention:

In your Own Voice – Alan Alda

Alda writes a beautiful piece from the perspective of someone fascinated by science on how scientists can communicate more effectively.  His question is the archetypal “dumb question” – the one that seems so obvious that no-one dares ask it, but in consequence is too often ignored or brushed aside:

“…if scientists could communicate more in their own voices—in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary—would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better under- stood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?”

Alda goes on to talk about how the actors tool of improvisation might be one tool that can help scientists begin to find that personal voice that connects with people they are attempting to communicate with.

This piece is well worth reading as it represents someone who is hungry for information from scientists, but needs them to communicate, not just lecture.  But the essay is also a model of communication itself.  Alda is engaging, exploratory, humble and passionate – all qualities that draw the reader in and feel as if they are having an intimate conversation with the writer.  And most importantly, it’s short – just three pages.  An excellent lesson in eloquent brevity!

Managing the Trust Portfolio: Science Public Relations and Social Responsibility – Rick Borchelt, Lynne Friedman and Earle Holland

This is probably the most controversial essay in the collection.  Borchelt and his co-authors tackle the sometimes contentious and often misunderstood role of public relations in science communication.

I suspect that most people – scientists and others alike – have a somewhat skewed perception what modern day public relations is all about.  There’s often a sense that it’s a bit of a dirty profession in a bit of a dirty world – selling an image, irrespective of whether the subject of that image is deserving.  But Borchelt et al. do a good job of deconstructing this myth, and presenting a very different perspective on PR.  They write:

“…for some time now, many scientific institutions have unadvisedly relied on retooled scientists and former reporters to crank out an increasing blizzard of peppy news releases, driven by the axiom—now rejected by communications theorists—that “to know us is to love us” … This new Madison Avenue–driven approach has a dim chance of regaining public trust. The scientific community needs to understand what ethical practitioners of public relations have long known: trust is not about information; it’s about dialogue and transparency.”

They go on to add that “As practitioners use the term, public relations is the art and science of developing meaningful “relations” (or relationships) with the “public” (or publics) necessary for the continuing work of an organization or the scientific enterprise itself.”  This seems a useful approach to science communication that begins to open the door to engagement between different groups, and a two-way flow of information rather than top-down instruction.  Indeed, Borchelt et al note that “many corporations have moved away from one-way communication approaches toward more fully symmetrical models.”  In the context of science, they suggest that the goal of such two-way engagements is the mutual satisfaction of scientific organizations or groups and their publics with the relationship that exists between them.

The essay then goes on explore this two-way approach to science public relations in the contexts of trust and social responsibility.

Whether you agree with the construct of science PR that is developed here or not, this is an important piece from the perspective of science communication and engagement, and reveals a more complex relationship between the generators and receivers of information and their intermediaries.  It is controversial – as is reflected in a response from NBC Science and Health correspondent Robert Bazell in the collection.  But it does reveal another side of the dynamic between science and the media.

The Scientist as Citizen – Cornelia Dean

The final essay I wanted to highlight was Cornelia Dean’s piece that turns the spotlight back on scientists.  Through her extensive experience as a science reporter, Dean writes that she came to realize

“…if we journalists were going to improve the coverage of science, scientists would have to help us. But two problems existed. First, many scientists are not good at talking about their work in ways ordinary people—and journalists—can understand. Second, many scientists do not believe they have any reason, still less obligation, to do so. This belief is by far the more serious problem.”

Rather than try and summarize the piece, I would encourage you to read it directly – Dean writes clearly and pointedly on the need for scientists to understand and learn to be comfortable and effective in communicating what they do to a wider audience – including journalists.  And specifically, she notes the need for scientists to receive training on communication.  She concludes with this account:

“A number of students have told me that the issues we discussed and the hints I offered helped them when their publications in scientific journals brought them to the attention of the lay press. One of them recently sent me an email message describing his first encounter with a journalist. “It was just awful,” he wrote. “I fumbled, said the wrong things, contradicted myself a dozen times, you name it.” He contrasted this experience with one he had later, after sitting in on one of my short seminars: “I asked [the journalist] to give me a few minutes to get ready. I went to my office to have a good quiet spot to talk, stood up while talking, and tried to follow your guidelines. It went a lot better this time!” Needless to say, he made my day.

I believe all scientists should encounter this kind of training—a short course, a semester-long program if they want it, or even an internship in a news outlet or policy-making venue. I would not give students advanced de- grees in science until they had heard the message this kind of training offers.

Is this enough to solve the problem? No. But it is a start. Seeding the nation’s scientific establishment with researchers who understand the impor- tance of communicating with the lay public, and who are willing to take the time to communicate, can only be good. More important, the establishment of university programs to advance this goal tells scientists-in-training that their institutions value the effort and regard it as a worthwhile use of their time. That is perhaps their most important lesson.”

Science and the Media is freely available as a download from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

I couldn’t resist finishing the August in the Archives series with this piece on “silent rave” syndrome, which I am sad to say still seems to inflict the emerging technologies community!

Originally posted October 5 2008

The silent rave might seem a rather bizarre social phenomenon; a group of strangers converging in a public place and dancing to their own individual iPod soundtracks.  But I have a sneaking suspicion that the emerging technology community has been indulging in the new tech-equivalent of silent raves for some time now.

These suspicions are probably the delusional by-product of jetlag.  But traveling back from the latest in a long line of multi-stakeholder nanotechnology meetings last week, the analogy hit a chord…

Imagine a meeting room where people are plugged into their own personal mental iPods: The scientists immersed in Avril Lavigne’s “Complicated” (apart from the toxicologists, who are playing “Another One Bites the Dust”); the industry folk tuned in to “I Did It My Way”; with the NGO’s rocking along to “Holding Out for a Hero” (with either Bonnie Tyler or Jennifer Saunders taking the lead, depending on how “hip” the group is).  And all the while the policy makers in the room listening to Bob Geldof and “I Don’t Like Mondays”—over and over again…

This is a recipe for a great time (for some), little progress, and a lot of noise.  And it seems to be one that is followed at many meetings designed to address the broader social, health and environmental issues of emerging technologies.

The problem is twofold I suspect:  People in different discipline and with different agendas find it hard to listen to and understand other perspectives. And in the absence of a clear focus for dialogue, it is near-impossible to find a common language to facilitate communication.  In the silent rave analogy: People find it really hard to unplug their mental iPods and listen to other tunes; especially if there isn’t a strong communal tune to replace their personal soundtracks.

This is hardly a blinding revelation.  But the point is nevertheless an important one if real progress is to be made in developing sustainable emerging technologies.  The question is: how can people be encouraged to unplug and join the conversation?

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I’m pretty sure one of the first steps will be to find that clear focus for dialogue—not just a woolly desire to talk about ill-defined implications of emerging technologies, but a clear statement of what the challenges are to making progress.  And that might mean dropping pre-conceived ideas of what defines any particular emerging technology (like nanotechnology), and focusing instead on what the science is revealing—and how this challenges conventional approaches to ensuring safe, environmentally sound and socially acceptable use.  Perhaps if this focus is found, it will lead to a communal tune so irresistible that people will start turning off their mental iPods, and tuning in to the group conversation.

In fairness, the meeting that sparked off these thoughts was more productive than many I have participated in.  But more is needed if we (as stakeholders in getting emerging technologies right) are to stop going round in circles and start making some serious headway into a technologically secure future.

And as for what is playing on my mental iPod:  Fortunately, I unplugged myself a long time back.  Funny thing though, no matter which meeting I’m at, I keep hearing strains of Pink Floyd’s “Is There Anybody  Out There?” Strange that!

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

A few weeks ago, I set Friends of the Earth a challenge - What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

The challenge came out of an article from FoE on nanomaterials and sunscreens, which I subsequently critiqued on 2020 Science.  Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminto from FoE kindly responded to my challenge – not by rising to it as such, but by fleshing out the justification for the position that they take on nanomaterials and sunscreens.

That post led to a useful discussion on the issues, with comments from the NGO community, regulators and respected scientists – it’s one that I would highly recommend anyone interested in nanomaterials and sunscreens reading.

To wrap things up (for the time being), I thought it would be worth reflecting on some of the issues raised by Georgia and Ian in their response, and the ensuing discussion:

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

This is a legitimate issue, and one that is touched on by a number of people in the comments.  Decisions on what is developed, what people are exposed to, who decides what is appropriate and what is not, and who pays the consequences while who reaps the benefits, go far beyond the science and technology itself.  This is touched on by Jennifer Sass from NRDC:

I strongly support a dialogue that has space for both scientific calculations and values and perceptions of risk. We need to make that dialogue public, inclusive, transparent, and thoughtful. Risk is more than a number – its a face, a person, a community.

Guillermo Foladorio also touches on this broader societal context:

We have here 2 kind of issues. One is the “scientific” knowledge (are nano-sunscreens harmful?). This is a never endend issue. Science is a process and not a fact. The other issue, although hidden, is of great importance: focusing on a never ended scientific discussion is the field that corporations like, in the meanwhile the market of such products grows and consolidates, aside from any wondering of the needs for such new stuff; or better which percentage of the population will benefit in the case.

I would suggest that forcing a technology on society has never been acceptable behavior.  But it has certainly been easier to do in the past.  These days though, we live in a much more crowded, resource-constrained and interconnected world than ever before.  Which means that the consequences of ill-conceived technology implementation are magnified, and the dynamics of introducing new – and possibly beneficial – technologies – are far more complex than they were in the past.

This means that we need to think critically about the broader societal issues associated with technology innovation, and we need to push the dialogue further upstream in the development process – a point Jeff Morris from EPA makes.  This means rethinking how we make decisions in partnership across society, and how we begin to apply ideas like the precautionary principle in a complex world – a point eloquently made by Richard Jones.

But it also means that we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

Evidence-informed decision-making. At some point, decisions need to be based on information, and in the long run you cannot get away with making that information up!  It’s one thing to evaluate critically the current state of evidence in making decisions, but quite another to preferentially select evidence that supports a predetermined position.  Yet the latter is often the default position when it comes to influencing decisions – whether by policymakers or consumers.

Having worked at the heart of science-based policy in the US for a number of years, I’m all too familiar with the line of argument that goes “what do we want to achieve?” followed by “what evidence can we find that supports us?”.  Yet this is an approach that ultimately devalues the importance of evidence in making decisions, one that can have serious adverse consequences when decisions are made on dodgy information, and one that is patently unsustainable in the long run.

My original critique of FoE’s article challenged their use of “evidence” in supporting the position they took.  To me, they showed a tendency to use selective pieces of information to sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the reader, rather than to empower the reader to make informed decisions. The social agenda was a laudable one – the use of selective science sound-bytes, less so.

This begins to come out when you read the comments on Georgia and Ian’s response from three scientists who have worked on nanoscale materials on the skin.  Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through.  He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place.  Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE.  Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that.  But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Yet, because there are uncertainties still, we cannot afford to be complacent here.

Handling uncertainty. And this brings me to the thorny issue of uncertainty.  When we are lacking absolute evidence on safety or risk, what do we do – do we halt progress until we are sure about how safe something is, or do we muddle along until more information is available?

This question is becoming increasingly important as the rate of technology innovation – and the complexity of emerging technologies – accelerates.  Consumers, regulators, businesses and others are being forced more and more to make decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty.  At the same time, we are dependent on technology innovation as a global society – although the idea of “going back to basics” is an attractive one, it’s not going to help the marginalized in an overcrowded and resource-constrained world.  Rather, we need new ideas on how to use science and technology in ways that ensure as many people as possible have an acceptable quality of life.

The question is, how do we do this when we cannot be sure of how safe or dangerous a new technology is?

The Precautionary Principle is one approach – and a very misunderstood and misused one – to addressing this, and one brought up by FoE and others in the context of sunscreens.  It has many formulations – it’s not a hard and fast principle.  But it is currently described in the European Union in this way:

The precautionary principle should be informed by three specific principles:

• implementation of the principle should be based on the fullest possible scientific evaluation. As far as possible this evaluation should determine the degree of scientific uncertainty at each stage;
• any decision to act or not to act pursuant to the precautionary principle must be preceded by a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction;
• once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available, all the interested parties must be given the opportunity to study of the various options available, while ensuring the greatest possible transparency.

Besides these specific principles, the general principles of good risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked. These are the following five principles:

• proportionality between the measures taken and the chosen level of protection;
• non-discrimination in application of the measures;
• consistency of the measures with similar measures already taken in similar situations or using similar approaches;
• examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action;
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments.
• The burden of proof

This is a pragmatic principle, that looks to using evidence and an evaluation of consequences in making informed decisions in the face of uncertainty.  It certainly does not preclude the development or implementation of a new technology until there is certainty on safety.

The emphasis on the potential consequences of inaction are particularly relevant to today’s world, where we are stuck on a technological tight-rope, and where the consequences of not doing something may be more harmful than taking action.  Richard Jones picked up on this in his suggestion for a more relevant application of the Precautionary Principle to emerging technologies:

what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

This seems a useful place to start from when faced with the reality of having to make the best possible decisions in the face of uncertainty, and where inaction isn’t a option.

But to make decisions – even when there are gaping holes in the data – you need something to go on.

So why did I pose the challenge in the first place? Despite suspicions from some that I was merely being provocative with this question, I asked it in all seriousness.  In the face of uncertainty, playing out different potential scenarios is a powerful tool in helping identify the magnitude and nature of the consequences of different choices.

When it comes to using nanomaterials in sunscreens, I genuinely would like to know whether in the worst case we are looking at mass illness and death, isolated cases of skin rashes, or something in between.  Because the likely implications of the use of such materials in the future have profound implications on the actions we take now.

If decisions are made now on futures that are unlikely to be realized, not only do we waste resources and effort, but we potentially endanger people’s lives through ill-informed choices.  This cuts both ways – if TiO2 and ZnO nanomaterials in sunscreens are likely to harm a significant number of people to a significant degree, action should be taken to avoid this as soon as possible.  But if the benefits are positive and the impacts likely to be inconsequential, inhibiting the use of such materials could cost lives.

Using the best available information to work through possible scenarios provides insight into which futures are more likely, and where efforts are best focused.  This isn’t about setting exposure levels or conducting quantitative risk assessments – it’s about helping people making informed choices.

And who should do this?  I think any group that has a stake in how contemporary decisions affect future outcomes has a part to play.  I focused on FoE because they were pushing the issue.  And I think they have sufficient people they can draw on to make a stab at working through some scenarios and estimating likely impact.

But at the end of the day, this is something that all stakeholders should be involved in.

Because these are decisions that we are all going to have to live with the consequences of.

I love books – the old fashioned kind, printed with ink on paper.  As a kid, books were my source of education, inspiration and entertainment.  As an adult, I still find there’s something oddly satisfying about picking up a sheaf of printed and bound pages and immersing myself in them.

So it’s perhaps not surprising that, when it came to using my prize money from I’m A Scientist, get Me Out Of Here, I ended up turning to books.

Knowing how to use the £500 prize for being the last scientist standing in the Silicon zone on I’m A Scientist was something of a challenge in itself.  The rules of the competition stated that “The money must be for publicising or communicating the scientist’s research (or research area).” It sounds simple. But £500 lies in that awkward region where it’s too little to do something really big with, but too much to just fritter away.  I suspect the organizers in their wisdom realized this – it’s a sum that forces you to think creatively!

And there was certainly some creative thinking amongst the scientists taking part in I’m A Scientist.  Tom Hartley (runner up in the Imaging zone) came up with the great idea of scanning a teacher using fMRI (an idea he’s still pursuing) for instance, while Stephen Curry – the winner of the Imaging zone – has plans for a follow-up to his “What Science Is Really Like” movie trailer.

But I really struggled with this.  I toyed with the idea of buying an iPad (“I’m sure it’ll get used for communicating science someday…”), or covering the costs of running 2020 Science (a little more legitimate maybe, but hardly creative).  In the end though, it was my love of books that won out.

So the £500 is going toward sending each class that participated in the Silicon zone of I’m A Scientist a copy of a book.  And not any old book – each class is getting a copy of Felice Frankel and George Whitesides’ No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale.

Preparing to mail copies of No Small Matter off to classes participating in the I'm A Scientist Silicon zone

The beauty of sending each class a science-related book is that it’s a long term investment.  Hopefully the students that took part in I’m A Scientist will get a kick out of it.  But then, the book will (hopefully) find it’s way to the class or the school library – where it will be a source of inspiration for future generations.

Okay so maybe fewer and fewer kids pick up books these days and read them.  But it’s still easier to flick through an attractive book that is within arms reach than stumble across it while browsing online.

And this is an attractive book.  Not just because it has high production values and contains some great photos, but also because it irresistibly draws the reader in as they browse through it.

What I love about Frankel and Whitesides’ book is that it isn’t patronizing and it doesn’t set out to instruct.  Rather, it opens a window into what it’s like to see the world as a scientist.  This – together with the beautifully written short essays and gorgeous pictures – makes it accessible and engaging to almost anyone who starts looking through it I suspect – whether they are into science or not.

I do hope the students enjoy the book.  And I hope it inspires them – not to become scientists necessarily, but to see and appreciate the world in a different way.

And of course, there’s always the possibility that they will come to appreciate that the printed page isn’t obsolete – quite let!

With apologies to Chris Mooney, and all the many scientists that really do get the need to listen to people.  And also with a rather large tongue in my cheek:

Dear Mr Mooney,

I’ve been way too busy this week doing important sciency stuff to engage with the trivialities of the popular press.  But this morning I stumbled across your protestations in last Sunday’s Washington Post. You know – the ones about scientists not listening enough to the public?

Choke? I’m still trying to remove bits of masticated Cheerios from my polyester labcoat!

Mr. Mooney, which planet are you on?!  Haven’t you realized yet that the public are just a bunch of raving loonies, obsessed with their own views and impervious to reason? What on earth would justify me listening to their misinformed and irrelevant bleating?

You see Mr. Mooney, what you don’t seem to get is that most of the public don’t think like right-minded people. They’re irrational.  They’re emotional.  And they seem to think that there’s more to how they live their lives than science!

And some of them, Mr. Mooney, some of them are denialists!

And this is what really gets my goat Mr. Mooney.  No matter how much I try and tell these people what’s right, they still insist on holding onto their wrong-headed beliefs.  Not only do they deny my superior intellect – they dare to question the evidence that’s sitting there in front of their face.  Even when I shove it up their noses Mr. Mooney, they just don’t get it!

Now don’t get me wrong Mr. Mooney, I don’t expect everyone to be a scientist like me.  But the public should at least be able to grasp how science works.  Then they might just start listening to me.  Me, Mr. Mooney, me.  Because through hard work and intellectual rigor, I actually have something worthwhile to say.

But I am a reasonable man Mr. Mooney.  And so I thought I would at least give your naive and misguided ideas a go.  So after cleaning up the Cheerios and milk spattered across my Washington Post, I grabbed myself a member of the public and tried listening to them.

As I suspected, it was a disaster.

Accosting the first person I came across, I asked them a few simple questions:

Me:  What’s the second law of thermodynamics?

Member of the public: Err, um…

Me: Okay, forget that.  How do airplanes fly?

Member of the public:  Err, excuse me, could you just loosen your grip a little…

Me:  Come on come on, I’m trying to listen to you – say something intelligent. Please!  Why don’t you accept evolution?  Why do you believe vaccines cause autism in children? Why don’t you understand simple statistics?  Why are you so stupid?

Member of the public:  Get your hands off me now, or see me in court!

You see what I mean Mr. Mooney? There’s no reasoning with these people!  Listen to them?  I’d rather listen to a lamp post.

What we need is more members of the public listening to us. Us Mr. Mooney.  We need to go out and meet them on their own turf – in their bars, in their cafes, in their places of worship – and tell them what’s what.

Now you may think that I’m being a little arrogant here Mr. Mooney.  But I’m really not.  You see, you probably don’t understand this, not being a real scientist yourself, but scientists change their ideas all the time if the evidence is compelling.  I admit it – If the evidence doesn’t fit, I’ll be the first to change my views.  So you see Mr. Mooney, I’m actually quite humble. I can live with the thought of loosing a slanging match against a worthy opponent – no problem.

It’s just that the public aren’t a worthy opponent – never have been, never will be.

So you see Mr. Mooney, listening to the public is a very, very bad idea.  Science isn’t a democracy.  You can’t decide what’s right and what’s not by popular vote!  No, science is about searching for truth and debunking myths (my truths and your myths – naturally).

Okay, so maybe things get a little more complicated when it comes to how science is used.  But then surely Mr. Mooney, the public should leave the difficult decisions to people who know what they are doing – in other words, us scientist.

Imagine where we’d be if we started listened to what people wanted instead of just giving them what they needed.  It’s enough to bring on another choking fit!

Yours knowledgeably,

A concerned scientist.

Joking aside, Chris Mooney’s article on scientists’ understanding of “the public” – which draws on four workshops organized by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and which provided the inspiration for the Washington Post piece – is well worth reading if you suspect that a more enlightened perspective on science and society is warranted.

Note:  This blog was promoted in part by a rather robust reaction to Chris Mooney’s Washington Post piece in parts of the blogosphere.  For a rather more nuanced set of responses from people that have some experience in this area, it’s worth checking out Andrew Revkin’s post on the Dot Earth blog form last week.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/07/04/scientist-listen-to-the-public-surely-youre-joking-mr-mooney/feed/ 24 http://2020science.org/2010/06/15/just-how-risky-can-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be-friends-of-the-earth-respond/ http://2020science.org/2010/06/15/just-how-risky-can-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be-friends-of-the-earth-respond/#comments Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:33:12 +0000 Georgia Miller http://2020science.org/?p=3337

Last week, I posed Friends of the Earth a challenge – “What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?”  Georgia Miller of FoE Australia and Ian Illuminato of FoE in the US have kindly provided a detailed response.  Rather than just keep this as a comment on the original blog, I thought it deserved a wider airing – and so am posting it here.

I will respond to the response in a few days time.  In the meantime, I would be extremely interested in what others think of the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, based on my original piece and Georgia and Ian’s piece below.  Please do comment – this seems to be an area that desperately needs some good and open discussion.

Andrew – thanks for the invitation to perform some complex risk assessment using several poorly understood variables. However we do have to point out that the world’s best minds don’t yet have enough information even to design reliable nanomaterial risk assessment processes, let alone to come up with a single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for long term health impacts of using nano-sunscreens.

The huge knowledge gaps plaguing nanomaterials toxicity and exposure assessment (along with preliminary studies suggesting the potential for serious harm) are key reasons for calls by Friends of the Earth Australia and United States for a precautionary approach to management of nanotoxicity risks.

We explain below why your risk assessment challenge is impossible given these data gaps. We also point out that given that different people with different skin types are likely to experience different exposure levels, positing any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure is inappropriate. Obviously you are aware of these serious limitations. This does prompt us to question the intent of your challenge.

Further, we strongly suggest that your challenge is directed to the wrong people. Why not demand that the manufacturers of nano-sunscreens provide you with the data to demonstrate that their products are safe? Why not challenge the regulators to explain their failure to keep nanomaterials that behave as extreme photocatalysts out of sunscreens?

Better yet, why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit? Transparent micron-particle sized zinc oxide sunscreens are commercially available; a recent article suggests most titanium dioxide nano-sunscreens on the market could be doing more harm than good. No-one need use nanoparticles in order to produce a cosmetically and functionally acceptable sunscreen.

Andrew, we respectfully suggest that someone of your expertise and stature could play a more constructive role in these debates – debates which should not be limited to a question of technical risk assessment.

Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato
Friends of the Earth Australia and United States
http://nano.foe.org.au
http://www.foe.org/healthy-people/nanotechnology-campaign

Why determining a single figure for ‘worst case scenario’ health harm associated with using nano-sunscreens is not possible

In 2004 the UK’s Royal Society recommended that nanoparticles be treated as new chemicals, subject to new safety testing before they could be used in products, and face mandatory labelling. Six years on, none of those things have happened.

The development and validation of nano-specific risk assessment processes may take years. As the European Food Safety Authority pointed out last year in relation to the risk assessment of nano-foods: “Although, case-by-case evaluation of specific ENMs [engineered nanomaterials] may be currently possible, the Scientific Committee wishes to emphasise that the risk assessment processes are still under development with respect to characterisation and analysis of ENMs in food and feed, optimisation of toxicity testing methods for ENMs and interpretation of the resulting data. Under these circumstances, any individual risk assessment is likely to be subject to a high degree of uncertainty. This situation will remain so until more data on and experience with testing of ENMs become available” (EFSA 2009, p2-39).

When it comes to sunscreens, a key component of risk assessment – determining likely exposure – is not yet possible because we do not yet understand what quantities of nanomaterials may be absorbed into the skin from sunscreens and in what circumstances. Skin penetration studies to date have largely failed to look at important variables such as skin condition (including damage through sunburn, injury or eczema, or thin skin present in the young or elderly), skin flexing (eg through exercise) and the role of substances in sunscreens that can act as penetration enhancers by increasing skin permeability. Further, most skin penetration studies have used excised skin in in vitro studies which is likely to underestimate actual penetration.

In your earlier blog you point out that research by Professor Brian Gulson at Macquarie University and by scientists at Australia’s CSIRO which shows radio-isotope labelled zinc from sunscreens in the blood and urine of human volunteers is not yet published. True enough – also that these researchers are not yet able to say whether or not the absorbed zinc they detected is in particle or ionic form. Nonetheless, the results do show that zinc in sunscreens does not simply remain on the outer layers of dead skin cells, as some have claimed. Many questions remain: the one clear answer is that more research is required.

One interesting point about Brian Gulson’s study underscores the impossibility of determining any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for health harm. Professor Gulson told the ICONN conference in Sydney this year that one woman with sensitive skin suspended her participation in the trial after four days due to an adverse reaction. The levels of isotope labelled zinc in her blood were also substantially greater than that of other people in the trial. Are people with sensitive skin more likely to experience substantially greater skin penetration by nano-ingredients in sunscreens? Could this put a minority of the population at greater health risk? We don’t yet know.

A further constraint on calculating your requested ‘worst case scenario’ figure is the paucity of long-term and multi-generational nanotoxicity studies. This is a very serious limitation. Potential health harm from exposure to many nanomaterials may be more likely to manifest in the long term, rather than immediately. This point was made in 2004 by global reinsurance giant Swiss Re (2004). Swiss Re emphasised that as with asbestos, the significant time lag between exposure to nanomaterials and the onset of health harm is the greatest challenge for insurers attempting to calculate risk.

You ask for a ‘worst case scenario’. One worst case scenario is the accelerated development of skin cancer in people using nano-sunscreens, despite their wearing sunscreens for sun protection. We are copying below an extract of comments made by Dr Maxine McCall of the Australian CSIRO to the ABC’s 7.30 Report in late 2008.

“There’s the concern that there could be free radical generation on the skin, potentially damage, when the nano particles get into cells in the body if they don’t dissolve,” Maxine McCall, head of the CSIRO’s nano safety research, said. “Because they could interact with proteins in the cell or with DNA which codes – which has the genetic information – the worst case scenario, I suspect, could be development of cancer. We don’t know. That’s what we’re trying to find out.”

Dr McCall told the 7.30 Report that it would be two to three years before the CSIRO could reach a conclusion on nano sunscreens. “At the moment, we just don’t have enough information to make informed decisions,” she said.

Nanomaterials that behave as photocatalyts have been found in five of six Australian nano-sunscreens tested by Barker and Branch (2008). Sunscreens containing both nanoparticle titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were demonstrated to have a photocatalytic effect. Some of these photocatalysts were so extreme that they accelerated sun damage to pre-painted steel roofs by up to 100 times. Clearly the effects on human skin of nano-sunscreen use will differ from a pre-painted steel roof. Will these extreme photocatalysts penetrate human skin and persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities to cause long-term health harm? We don’t know.

Another worst case scenario is harm to the developing brains and reproductive systems of unborn babies, following maternal exposure to sunscreens. If nanoparticles from sunscreens are absorbed into a pregnant woman’s bloodstream, it is possible that they could pass across the placenta to the unborn baby. A recent study showed that polystyrene nanoparticles up to 240nm in size can be transported through a human placenta [note to Andrew: in your earlier blog you state that this “research was aimed at working out how to get beneficial drugs to the fetus”. The motivation of the study is arguably irrelevant. However in this instance the study is clearly designed to explore the potential for risky nanoparticle exposure in utero].

Animal studies have found altered gene expression, harm to the brains and reproductive systems and minor neuro-behavioural alterations in mice born to mothers exposed to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Will nanoparticles of titanium dioxide be absorbed from sunscreens into the bloodstreams of pregnant women in sufficient quantities, and will they persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities, to harm unborn babies? Again, we don’t know. This will require much further research.

In the meantime, regulators faced with substantive knowledge gaps struggle to formulate an appropriate public policy response to uncertain but potentially serious risks. Challenging community groups to calculate the technical risk of a worst-case scenario of wearing nano-sunscreens to justify their asking product manufacturers to undertake basic safety research seems more than a little retrograde.

It’s a quarter to one in the morning Eastern Time, and I’ve just polished off the last question of the day on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here!  I should be heading off to bed, but I wanted to capture some initial thoughts on this exercise first.

I’ve lost count of how many questions I’ve answered today – hundreds it seem (although it’s probably less).  I did see a note come round earlier that 1000 questions have already been answered by the team of scientists – and it’s just the first day.

Watching the reactions of my fellow contestants on Twitter, I think we’ve all had the same experience – gobsmacked by the volume and depth of the questions, followed by a rather rapid recalibration of how we go about answering them!

In fact this has had me intrigued – so far the event hasn’t so much been about scientists educating students, as students training scientists – training them to listen to what’s being asked, and to reply concisely and in terms that the questioner can understand.  It’s been a fascinating process to watch.  And judging by the speed with which peoples’ style of reply has evolved, it’s been a very successful process!

There’s also been a certain amount of humility in the scientists’ camp today, as we’ve all facing hard lessons in acknowledging what we don’t know!  The thing with teenagers – as we’re discovering first hand – is that they’re not scared to ask questions older people think they should know the answers to.  Which is why questions like “how does magnetism work” have thrown even seasoned physicists into disarray!

Just browsing through the questions I’ve had, they have covered everything from global warming ,to risks and safety, to what it’s like being a scientist, to animal testing.  I’ve even been asked rather personal questions about what I believe, and how much I earn (maybe inadvisedly, I’m adopting a policy of openness and transparency here – it’ll be interesting to see how long it lasts!).

Altogether a tough day, but a good one (and I haven’t even had a Live Chat yet, where the students bombard you with questions in real time!).

Let’s see what tomorrow brings!

And on a slightly different note, I wanted to highlight an article published today by I’m A Scientist producer Sophia Collins.  In it she makes an incredibly important point:

[A]sk me what I think the most important impact of this is and I’ll tell you this: the majority of today’s teenagers are not destined to become scientists, but they will all be people and citizens.

They’ll all have votes to cast, goods to buy, decisions to make. I want them to be doing that with some ability to think about the issues surrounding science. I don’t want them swayed by yuck factors or scaremongering that plays fast and loose with the facts. I also don’t want them making decisions in wilful ignorance, rejecting the evidence out of hand because they feel patronised and belittled by a science they perceive as elite or aloof. I want them to feel entitled to discuss the issues and equipped to do it, because only then will they come to a considered view.

Despite the hard work, this is exactly why I am so excited to be a part of this, and I suspect why a number of my colleagues are.

But more of that later.  For now, bed – before the next onslaught of questions begins!

You can see all of my answered questions here.

If you want to participate in the rather fab science event I’m A Scientist, Get me Out Of Here I’m afraid you are out of luck – unless you happen to be one of the 100 scientists and 8000 teenagers taking part.

But you can still get a thrill from watching the competition unfold on-line while experiencing science as a spectator sport as you’ve never seen it before! And believe me, this is an event you’re not going to want to miss – especially if you have any interest whatsoever in engaging teenagers in science.

So, if you want to watch the fun, where do you begin?

Here are three ways you might start:

1.  Random dipping

Simply open the home page of I’m A Scientist and dive in

You’ll notice the log-in panel to the right – just ignore this.

From this screen you have two options – pick a Zone to browse (there are twenty of them – ten themed zones, and ten general ones), or check out the latest questions (the panel to the right):

If you select a Zone, you can then explore the questions and discussions going on there (see below).  Each has five scientists, and around 400 teenagers pummeling them with questions.

2.  Zone-watching

Given the craziness of 8000 teenagers quizzing 100 scientists, you might prefer the relative sanity of concentrating on just one Zone.  There are twenty to choose from – ten focus on specific areas, while the remaining ones are science free-for-all’s.  You can either select your Zone of preference from the home page of I’m A Scientist, or from the drop-down menu at the top right of each page:

Once you enter a Zone, you can either view the most recent questions asked in that Zone from its home page, or you can check out what the Zone’s scientists have been up to by clicking on the “Scientists” tab .

This is what the Silicon Zone – my home on I’m A Scientist – looks like:

Check out the latest questions and comments under each scientist to see how they are doing.  Or click on an individual scientist to get the low-down on all their recent activity.

From the Zone Home page (accessed from the the top left tab), you can also explore all the questions students in this Zone have asked.  Simply go over to the “Recent Questions” box on the right of the screen, and select “View all answered questions”.  This brings up the full list of questions for this Zone:

3.  Scientist-rooting

Finally, you can opt to root for one of the 100 scientists taking part in I’m A Scientist.  To track their progress – and see whether they survive the week two “expulsions,” simply click on the scientist’s image from the Zone pages.  This is what my page looks like, but of course you have ninety-nine other worthy souls to root for as well

And finally, when you do click on a question, this is what you will get:

As scientists respond to the question and students comment on the responses, a conversation builds up, and the fun really begins!

There are plenty of other ways to enjoy I’m A Scientist – live chats between students and scientists are scheduled throughout the two weeks that you should be able to tap into for instance, and you can follow the I’m A Scientist back-stories on Twitter by using the hashtag #IAS2010.  There’s also a Twitter group of scientists involved in the event.

So log on, tune in, and immerse yourselves in one of the most innovative and exciting teen-science events in recent years.

But be warned – once you get hooked, there’s no going back!

Update 6/13/10 – I should have also mentioned that you can pull up a list of answered questions for each scientist from their profiles.  This is my list – similar lists are available for the other contestants.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/13/a-spectators-guide-to-im-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/06/08/just-how-risky-could-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be/ http://2020science.org/2010/06/08/just-how-risky-could-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be/#comments Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:00:30 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3301

Following up from my previous post, here’s an open question to Friends of the Earth:

What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

What I am interested in is a number – a probability of a specific human health impact being caused by using a given amount of nano-sunscreen over a certain amount of time.  Something like:

“In the worst case, it is estimated that using [number] grams per day of sunscreen comprising [percent] TiO2/ZnO nanoparticles over [number] days could lead to an [percent] risk of the user developing [disease].”

This can be based on an extrapolation of the current state of the science to a worst case scenario.  But it must be plausible.  And the calculations/sources to get to the end number must be transparent.

I’m asking because I am interested to see whether it is possible to place an upper bound on the safety of nanoparticle-based sunscreens, and whether this will be useful in moving the dialogue over nano-enabled sunscreens away from ungrounded speculation, towards evidence-based discussion.

So that’s the challenge.  I’m hoping my good friends at Friends of the Earth will rise to it.

I can’t sleep, I’m distracted, I keep breaking out in a cold sweat.  And the reason?  I have a deceptively simple question going my head – and I don’t know the answer!

The question… well, I’ll come to that in a minute.  I’d rather put the moment of embarrassment off for at least a few more lines – because rest assured, I will embarrass myself.   But let me first back up a little…

You may recall me writing about a superb on-line event involving teenagers and scientists held in the UK a few weeks ago.  I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here was an inspirational exercise in getting teens engaged in science.  Built around on-line chats and Q&A, around 1400 kids interacted with 20 scientists on every topic under the sun over a two week period (and I mean, every topic).  The stroke of genius was that the scientists were competing for prizes (£500 to the winners), and the students had the power to decide who won and who didn’t – with contestants being “voted out” on successive days towards the end of the contest until only the winners were left standing.

So enamored was I by the event that I put myself forward for the next round – to be held between June 14 – 25.  Foolish, foolish, foolish!  I’m only just beginning to understand what I’ve let myself in for!

The next I’m a Scientist event is humongous – 100 scientists, 400 classes, and 8000 students.  Eight Thousand!  The scientists and students are divided into twenty groups, each with five scientists battling it out to be the last one standing at the end of the two weeks, and each group engaging with around 400 students.  This has to be one of the biggest events of it’s kind around – 8000 teenagers getting the chance to talk in some depth with real-life scientists on any subject they fancy (8000 – I can’t get that number out of my head. 8000!)

As you’ll have guessed, I was picked to be one of the “lucky” contestants.  Successful applicants were selected by the students and teachers taking part in the event, as well as the organizers and sponsors, based on a one-line descriptions of what they did for a living (I wrote “Helping people to make science-informed decisions about stuff that affects them” – which I thought was a little lame, but clearly not lame enough).

Looking at who I’m up against, the competition’s going to be tough – really tough.  I’m in the “Silicon” group, which is a general science group.  My fellow scientists – whom I suspect will wipe the floor with me, being younger, brighter and funnier than I am (I’m guessing here – a little paranoia creeping in) – are Marianne Baker from Bart’s Institute of Cancer,  Paula Gilfillan from the Royal Navy, Andrew Leitch from the University of Edinburgh and Emma Pilgrim from North Wyke Research (you can see a list of all the contestants here.)

I’m not too worried about the science questions – having a couple of teenage kids of my own, I’ve leaned to field these over the years (although “have you checked Wikipedia?” is probably not the most responsible answer there is).  What really scares the pants off me though is the left-of-field questions – questions like “Pirates or Ninjas?”, “What color is a chameleon sitting on a mirror?” and – the cause of my panic attacks – “Why did the chicken cross the road?”!

I mean, why did the chicken cross the road?  I don’t buy this “to get to the other side” business – how did the chicken know what a “road” was, never mind how it managed to consciously think to itself why it needed to be on the other side of it in the first place?  It’s a chicken.  It doesn’t think.  It just does stuff!

How can a scientist be expected to answer questions like this?!

I think I’m going to fail…

…Actually, you’ve probably worked out by now that I’m going to have a blast with this!

I still suspect that it’s going to be fiendishly tough surviving ’till the end.  But I’m really looking forward to the experience – chicken questions and all.  What really excites me about the whole thing is that there will be 8000 teenagers who discover that scientists are ordinary people, and that the only thing that makes them “special” is that they are doing something they love and that they think has value.

That’s got to be worth an awful lot.

While the event’s running, anyone can check out the on-line conversations – and I would strongly encourage you to do so (you can follow the proceedings on the I’m A Scientist website, which will be updated closer to when things kick off on June 14).  If the last event is anything to go by, you’ll find them inspiring, humbling, engaging, and totally, totally addictive.

In the meantime, I need to get into practice.  Being one of the few participants not resident in the UK, I need to get my body used to the idea of 4:00 AM on-line chats (caffeine – and lots of it – I think).  And I’ve already started my “Google speed-search” exercises for those occasional questions that temporarily stump me (actually, one of the great features of I’m A Scientist is students discovering that scientists don’t know everything).

Now, if only I could just nail that chicken question…

___________________________________

I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here runs between June 14 – 25.  You can follow the questions and answers at http://imascientist.org.uk/.  You can also follow I’m A Scientist on Twitter:  Sophia Collins, the producer, is @imascientist on Twitter; contestants on Twitter can be found here, and I’m A Scientist tweets will be using the hashtag #IAS2010

Having recently finished Robert Winston’s “Bad Ideas?  An Arresting History of our Inventiveness,” I was rather taken by his concluding “Scientist’s Manifesto” – a fourteen-point guide to help strengthen the relationship between science and society.  As well as reflecting much of my own thinking, it embodies many of the ideas coming out of the science communication and engagement community in recent years – although thankfully it lacks much of the jargon that usually accompanies these ideas.

The manifesto is very much a work in progress – Winston refers to it as a “starting point.”  But even in its current form, it challenges scientists to think about their work in a broader context, and to engage more fully with the society that supports them and ultimately stands to be impacted by them – for good or bad:

A Scientist’s Manifesto – Professor Robert Winston

1.  We should try to communicate our work as effectively as possible, because ultimately it is done on behalf of society and because its adverse consequences may affect members of the society in which we all live.  We need to strive for clarity not only when we make statements or publish work for scientific colleagues, but also in making our work intelligible to the average layperson.  We may also reflect that learning to communicate more effectively may improve the quality of the science we do and make it more relevant to the problems we are attempting to solve.

2.  Communication is  two-way process.  Good engagement with the public is not merely a case of imparting scientific information clearly.  It involves listening to and responding to the ideas, questions, hopes and concerns the public may have.  We should accept that this kind of engagement with the public is a matter of good citizenship.  We should reflect that sometimes proper dialogue with various sections of the public may inform some aspects of our work.  Moreover, it can make any technology that is developed from our work more relevant to the needs of the public and less likely be dangerous.

3.  The media, whether written, broadcast or web-based, play a key role in how the public learn about science.  We need to share our work more effectively by being as clear, honest and intelligible s possible in our dealings with journalists.  We also need to recognize that misusing the media by exaggerating the potential of what we are studying, or belittling the work of other scientists working in the field, can be detrimental to science.

4.  We need to recognize that the science we do is not entirely our property.  Whether the taxpayer helps fund our scientific education or not, most of our training and research is paid for by the public – in grants from the research councils or charities.  The public has a major stake in the ownership of what we do.

5.  Whenever possible, we should always consider the ethical problems that may be raised by the applications of our work.  Some scientists have claimed that science does not have a moral value; but while pure knowledge may be ethically neutral, the way this knowledge is gained and the use to which it is put can involve many difficult ethical issues.

6.  We should reflect that science is not simply ‘the truth’ but merely a version of it.  A scientific experiment may well ‘prove’ something, but a ‘proof’ may change with the passage of time as we gain better understanding.  Mere assertion that something is fact will not persuade many people of the rightness of what we say.  It is worth bearing in mind that sometimes two well-conducted experiments can give conflicting results that are equally valid.  Science is not absolute; it is often about uncertainty.

7.  It is understandable and proper that we scientists are immensely proud of what we discover, but it is easy to forget that this special knowledge can sometimes breed a culture of assumed omnipotence and arrogant assertion.  We need to avoid arrogance because it can lead to misinterpretation of data and to conflict instead of collaboration with colleagues.  Moreover, arrogance is likely to damage the reputation of science by increasing public mistrust.

8.  Scientists are regularly called upon to assess the work of other scientists or review their reports before publication.  While such peer review is usually the best process for assessing the quality of scientific work, it can be abused.  When conducting peer review, we should try to ensure that we are fair and scrupulous and not acting out of a vested interest.

9.  We should try to see our science in a broad context, but also be aware of the limitations of our personal expertise.  We should consider that, when talking outside our own subject, we may be more likely to mistake the facts of a case.  We should be particularly cautious about making predictions about the future of science, not least because creating unrealistic expectations can be damaging.

10.  Governments, whether totalitarian, oligarchic or democratically elected, usually have vested interests.  Such interests are not necessarily conducive to good research or to good use of the fruits of knowledge.  Government control of science can have malign influence.  This is certainly true of totalitarian governments, but misuse of science is very common in virtually all liberal democracies, including our own.  It is difficult for scientists to retain independence from politicians, because politicians ultimately make many key funding decisions.  But we need to keep some distance from politicians, and should not avoid criticizing their decisions where we feel they are wrong or dangerous.

11.  Commercial interests, so often promoted by governments and universities, cannot be disregarded if technology is to be exploited for public good.  But scientists need to be aware of the dangers of conflicts of interest and to retain a sense of balance, because commercial interests can be a bad influence on scientific endeavour.  The history of science shows that the over-eager or narrow-minded pursuit of commercial interests can lead to the loss of public trust.

12.  In the Western world, most of our best basic science is done in universities.  But historically, universities have been élite and mysterious institutions, and even today they are sometimes perceived as rather threatening places where the complex and unintelligible takes place.  Those of us working in universities should try to help foster a new culture of open access to our institutions and, where we can, help strengthen activities which involve community service and outreach.  Where possible we should do our best to support whatever aspect of public engagement is taken by the university.

13.  Schools have the most vital role to play in encouraging young people to see the magnificence of the natural world.  But sadly, at present, many schools actively discourage children from appreciation of the wonders of science.  We should try to support initiatives that may promote more practical and experimental work for children, and show our appreciation of inspirational teachers and their teaching.  If we are in a position to do so, we should promote stronger connections and collaborations between schools, school-children and universities, because this is likely to help produce a healthier, safer society.

14.  Just a generation ago, the mark of a civilized person was an appreciation of Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Thucydides, Rembrandt and Beethoven.  But the pursuit of science has become so intense and demanding that today’s scientists are more likely to neglect our cultural inheritance.  We may wish to reflect that by broadening our own interests; thus we may help non-scientists to see science as part of our culture.  Shakespeare, Thucydides, Goethe or even Milton may not be directly relevant to our scientific research, but the cultural values such authors represent are universal and deeply important.  The words of the roman poet Terence are of particular relevance: Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto – ‘I am a man: nothing human is foreign to me.’

(reproduced with Robert Winston’s permission)

I really like these – having worked at the interface between science and the rest of society (or at least, parts of it) for some years now, they make a lot of sense to me.  But I imagine they are not to everyone’s taste.

So what do you think – are they useful, do they need work, or do you think they on the wrong track?  There’s a big blank comment box below, just waiting for your thoughts!

A guest blog by Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California Santa Barbara.

A couple of weeks back, my colleague David Guston wrote here about engaging the public on nanotechnology.   In his piece he gave an excellent overview of the US government’s activities – or relative lack of them – on public engagement in this area.  But I also felt that some questions on why we should encourage public participation in nanotechnology in the first place – and how the government should think about approaching this – were left unanswered.  So to continue where David left off, I would like to explore these questions a little further.

To start with, why do public deliberation on nanotechnology?  The simplest answers are because it’s the right thing to do, and because it’s a useful thing to do.

Let’s take those one at a time:

Public participation is the right thing to do

Public participation in nanotechnology is the right thing to do because it’s a legal mandate – incorporation of some element of public participation is a required element of the Congressional authorization for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It also enables citizens to participate more fully in the democratic process.

The normative view is that within a democracy it is right and proper to have all affected parties involved in decisions that may affect them (Fiorino 1989). Such democratic values may indeed compete with technocratic values, but the “participatory turn” (Whitmarsh 2009) with its resultant legal basis for participation is now an established fact in many countries.

If you accept that potentially affected publics have a right to know, at least about risks, the issue of how to gain their ‘informed consent’ to those risks is a complex ethical matter because nanotechnology involves an entire class of technologies that span almost all industries, and the potentially affected include most of society. Public deliberation is one method for achieving informed consent in this upstream context, although a comprehensive public deliberation effort in the US would necessarily be extensive in scope given the potential ubiquity of distribution of nano materials, products, and waste.

Both Centers for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) established by the National Science Foundation – David’s at Arizona State University (ASU) and the one I direct at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) – have engaged in public deliberation exercises.  But efforts to date have been on a small scale—they’ve necessarily included a very limited number of participants, and have focused only on a limited subset of the spectrum of applications (CNS-UCSB’s 10 public deliberation workshops in 2007 and 2009 focused on nanotech energy/environment applications or health/enhancement applications; CNS-ASU’s 6 workshops in 2007 looked exclusively at human enhancement technologies). On-line deliberation and the linking of selective face-to-face deliberation results with comprehensive survey data for validating opinions and views in national samples offer some potential methods for future larger scale nano deliberations, as long as diverse publics are included. We are pursuing both strategies on a pilot basis at CNS-UCSB.

In terms of public participation in the NNI, fulfillment of the normative purpose would mean allocating sufficient resources to conduct a meaningful public deliberation effort that is iterative and involves both lay persons and scientists.  Even though this might take some resources away from technological R&D in the short term, this would be in the interest of creating “socially sustainable technologies” (i.e., development of nanotechnologies that will be good for society in the long term).

Public deliberation is a useful thing to do

In addition to the normative reasons cited above, public participation is potentially useful for both instrumental and substantive purposes (Fiorino 1989). Instrumental here means that public participation contributes to other goals – for example, building community support for local development; or creating a basis of trust that will sustain support in the event of risk events.  Substantive contributions refer to the actual knowledge and learning that can take place through deliberative processes, particularly the contribution of local knowledge to successful outcomes – for example, better understanding of more useful applications of multi-purpose devices.

There are two foundational resources that have laid the groundwork for the current state of knowledge about this, both of them publications based on National Research Council panels:

Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Stern and Fineberg 1996) made the case for how making risks understandable to the public and avoiding risk controversies and conflict involve far more than just translating scientific knowledge (e.g. risk assessment). In it, they set out the main framework for “analytic-deliberative” decision making as a process that includes both analysis and public deliberation, brings lay and scientific experts together in an iterative process that promotes co-learning not just for particular decisions, and, when done well, can lead to better outcomes in terms of a number of important criteria.

Much more recently, in Dec 2008 Dietz and Stern’s National Research Council volume Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, reported on a panel specifically convened to address questions of whether public participation in environmental decision making was beneficial to the process and outcomes or if, as some detractors have argued, involving lay people in complex technical decision making slowed or even derailed the process. They concluded that when conducted properly, public participation as a part of government or private sector organizations for assessment, planning and decision making (i.e., not political participation for voting or forming interest groups) contributes to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of decision making.

Getting back to nanotechnology, the NNI has not yet specified the form that public participation should take.

Key aspects of successful public participation and deliberation have been shown to include:

• “early and often” (meaning that you need to begin the process early in development and continue interaction often);
• procedural fairness (even if publics don’t agree with agencies, if they feel they’ve been treated openly, respectfully and fairly, this leads to demonstrably better outcomes, such as less litigation) (Chess and Purcell 1999);
• well managed process, including a clear purpose, adequate resources, genuine commitment of participants to the process, timely outputs, and a focus on learning; and
• implementation that includes breadth of participants, intensity of interaction (particularly face-to-face), and integration of scientific expertise (Dietz & Stern 2008).

Thus, in addition to the political will to include participation as an element of the NNI, there is considerable basis for asserting that public participation in nanotech R&D can be beneficial to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of the NNI. Public participation in nanotechnology development that:

1. addresses needs and concerns of publics (and publics for this purpose would include businesses, NGOs, and communities, as well as individuals),
2. reduces mistrust between stakeholders (e.g., academic or industry labs and surrounding communities), and
3. results in all participants (including scientists) being better informed about the issues and about one another, and produces meta-learning about participatory processes

would be a highly successful outcome for the NNI. On the other hand, one enduring and detrimental feature of public participation efforts has been the “reluctance of government to grant influence to participatory efforts,” and another common cause of poor public participation outcomes is when participation is aimed at “boosterism” for an agency or program (Chess and Purcell 1999).

Clearly, public deliberation in the NNI, if it is to be effective, needs to take heed of these hard-won lessons, and knowledgeable researchers will be reluctant to take part in an effort that is likely to fail for such predictable reasons.

___________________________________

References

Chess, Caron and Kristen Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Env Sci & Tech 33(16): 2685-2692.

Dietz, Thomas and Paul C. Stern, Eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Fiorino, Daniel. 1989. Environmental risks and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14:501-547.

Stern, Paul D. & Harvey V. Fineberg, Eds. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization, commission on Behavioral and social Sciences and Education. National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine. 2009. Review of Dietz and Stern, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1069-1072.

The politics of science fascinates me – the more so because there are still some naifs who think that science is apolitical.  And like all politics, sometimes it gets nasty.  I was reminded of this rather starkly while reading an interview with Ben Goldacre this morning in the latest edition of Imperial College’s science magazine I, Science.

Ben – for those of you not into the UK science scene – is a British Doctor, a columnist for The Guardian newspaper, and a celebrated debunker of suspect science and science-related goings-on.  You can find his blog at Bad Science. In the Spring edition of I, Science (published this past week), Ben gives a candid interview with Ben Kolb, a Science Communication student at Imperial College in the UK.

The interview certainly has its moments – Alice Bell, Ben Kolb’s prof and a lecturer in Science Communication at Imperial, called the transcript “a bit bloody brilliant” on Twitter this morning.

But the transcript also reveals an uglier side of science communication when Ben Goldacre lays into Robert Winston – Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College.

Having just finished Winston’s latest book – “Bad ideas? An arresting history of our inventions” (more about this in later blogs), I was taken aback to read Goldacre’s description of him as “a man who I regard as laughable.”  The full conversation goes like this:

Kolb: So what’s next for you? Are you planning Bad Science II or Worse Science perhaps?

Goldacre: Hahaha, cool man, you should be in Marketing, that’s for sure. Well I don’t know. There are a lot of “Bad…” books now aren’t there? There’s ‘Bad Ideas’ by Robert Winston, a man who I regard as laughable.

Kolb: I don’t know if we’ll be allowed to print that. He’s Professor of Science and Society or something…he’s got a powerful position here at Imperial.

Goldacre: Yeah, he collects powerful positions and makes very, very boring TV shows and also personally endorsed a commercial product containing fish oil and appeared in all their adverts. Adverts which were subsequently banned by the Advertising Standards Authority because they breached their conditions on truthfulness and accuracy…

Robert Winston is a widely respected doctor, scientist and science communicator, as well as an active member of the British House of Lords.  He has introduced millions of TV viewers and readers over the years to science and the roles it plays in their lives.  And in my experience, he brings a thoughtful and humble perspective to working out the complex relationships between scientists and the rest of society.

So why on earth is Ben Goldacre accusing him of being “laughable” and “boring?”

Is it simply Goldacre trying to oust the old alpha male in the science communication hierarchy and squeeze himself into the spot (he’s previously referred to Winston and others as ‘the old guard of “public engagement in science”’)?  I hope not, because this type of ego-sparring can only harm efforts to engage people in science.  Yet the exchange above has all the hallmarks of making a personal point irrespective of the evidence – something Goldacre is usually helping expose rather than indulging in.

Deconstructing the exchange, Goldacre starts off labeling Winston as someone he finds “laughable” – a good tactic for denigrating your opponent without the need for evidence (Goldacre is the voice of authority in this interview, remember).

He then moves on to describing Winston as someone “who collects powerful positions.”  It’s true that Professor Winston holds a number of prestigious positions – he is a professor at Imperial College, Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, a member of the House of Lords, and Fellow of a whole string of professional organizations.  Given his achievements, I suspect that he has earned these positions, and is fully justified in holding them.  To describe the man as collecting “powerful positions” borders on implicit accusations that are distasteful to say the least – and hints at questionable practices with no evidence to back them up. (out of interest, I ran a Web of Science search on both Winston and Goldacre.  A search for peer reviewed articles authored by “Winston, RML” brings up 122 entries.  A similar search for “Goldacre, B*” brings up 2 entries – one of which isn’t associated with the Ben Goldacre as far as I can tell).

Then there is the accusation of Winston making “very, very boring TV shows.”  Well, I guess Dr. Goldacre is entitled to his opinion.  But I think that when it comes to communicating science, it is the opinion of those being communicated to that counts; and the fact that Winston is a regular figure on British TV and watched by millions – repeatedly – suggests that the “boring” accusation is not one upheld by the people that actually matter here.

Ending the exchange, Goldacre brings up the fish oil adverts.  I’m not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of these adverts as I don’t have all the information to hand – although you can read the Advertising Standards Authority assessment here.  What is more interesting is the way Ben combines multiple disconnected things to create the illusion of a suspect character – a tactic used widely by activist groups and less scrupulous journalists.  The reader is left with the impression that being laughable, collecting powerful positions and making boring TV programs are somehow linked to Winston’s participation in a questionable advertising campaign.  They are not of course – there is no substantive connection between Goldacre’s personal views of Winston and the ad campaign alluded to.  But the the impression the association leaves is a seductive one.  It’s exactly the tactic some activists and journalists use to make it appear that unconnected pieces of information can be joined together to support a predetermined position.

Political and personal maneuvering like this is ugly.  It gives science a bad name.  But it also undermines the efforts of many to reach out to people who aren’t that engaged with science.  The sad thing is that Goldacre is a talented communicator.  If only that talent could be focused more on building up science in society, rather than bringing down the pillars of science engagement and communication.

Does the US need more public participation in assessing technologies and their potential impact on society, and informing decisions on their development and use?  Richard Sclove – author of a new report on technology assessment – thinks yes; but only as part of a new paradigm for technology assessment.  The report, published today by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Science & Technology Innovation Program, announces plans for a new Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology Network (ECAST), which would compliment expert input with participatory technology assessment to help inform decisions on developing new and emerging technologies.

I’m currently reading Robert Winston’s new book “Bad Ideas? An arresting history of our inventions” (slowly, as regular followers of 2020 Science will realize!).  Starting from the earliest indications of innovation amongst humans – from tool-making and the development of language – and ending up at the present day, he takes a hard look at what innovation has cost us over the ages, as well as what we have gained from it.  Reading it, one can’t help ask the question (as I suspect the author intended) – are we slaves to innovation, or can we control the process?

Technology Assessment in all its guises is a rejection of the former, and an attempt to embrace the latter.  It is based on the assumption that, if only we can get some insight into where a particular technology innovation is going and what the broader social and economic consequences might be, we should be able to tweak the system to increase the benefits and decrease the downsides.

As an idea, it’s an attractive one.  Having the foresight to identify potential hurdles to progress ahead of time and make decisions that help overcome them at an early stage makes sound sense.  If businesses wants to develop products that are sustainable over long periods, governments want to craft policies that have long-reaching positive consequences and citizens want to support actions that will benefit them and  their children, any intelligence on the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with a new technology is invaluable to informed decision-making.

The trouble is, making sense of a complex future where technology, social issues, politics, economics and sheer human irrationality collide, is anything but straight forward.

Back in 1972, the US Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to handle exactly this type of challenge.  For 23 years , OTA took a relatively formal and meticulous approach to assessing emerging technologies for Congress, based on expert input and analysis.  When the Office was closed in 1995, many considered it a blow to informed policy on science and technology within the US.  Ironically, as the US (along with the rest of the world) now squares up to some of the most complex science and technology-based issues and opportunities ever to face humanity, the tools that might help inform forward-looking decisions on how to navigate this technology-driven future are rather conspicuously lacking.

Into this void comes today’s report from Dr. Richard Sclove – founder and senior Fellow of the Loka Institute.  Sclove argues that we need to take a proactive role in determining the trajectory of technology for the good of society, but that a changing world demands new approaches – the OTA of 1972 (he suggests) would look conspicuously out of place in today’s fast pace, interconnected world.  Specifically, he argues that citizens need a place at the table – not instead of experts, but as a valuable voice alongside those of others in evaluating how technology-driven futures might most appropriately evolve.

Richard makes a strong case for what he terms participatory Technology Assessment – or pTA.  He argues that in a democracy, citizens should have the right to help decide how technology is developed and used; that citizens bring a range of social values to the table which are critical to determining technology trajectories and can help select potentially more sustainable ways forward; that engaging a broad base of people expands the knowledge base on which decisions are made; that citizen involvement can improve the effectiveness of decisions that are made, and help avoid costly mis-steps; and that pTA can even lead to expedited conclusions (although I am still struggling to see how asking more people for their perspectives and input can lead to a faster process).

The challenge is, how to make this work – and work in a way where citizens are fully engaged in the process of decision making, rather than just being a token presence.

Sclove quickly dismisses the option of re-instating the OTA (or a similar institutionalized body) as being outdated, unlikely to embrace pTA (the OTA did not engage citizens in technology assessment generally), and too focused on serving institutions within government rather than society as a whole.   He also challenges the suggestion that sufficient technology assessment is already carried out by a range of government offices, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Instead, an alternative is offered – an independent network of institutions that work together to carry out a combination of expert and participatory technology assessment.

The result is ECAST – the Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology Network; a proposed independent network of organizations that can facilitate and conduct technology assessments that are not only responsive to 21st century challenges, but also make full use of 21st century opportunities.

As presented in the report, ECAST is in the initial stages of formation, supported by the Woodrow Wilson  International Center for Scholars, the Boston Museum of Science, the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science CheerLeader, and The Loka Institute.  However, there are clearly plans to expand this network.

The model as it stands is based on working through science museums (as a direct link to citizens), universities (bringing innovative ideas and research and analysis capabilities to the table) and non-partisan policy research organizations (providing policy relevance, and interfacing with decision makers).  While at an early stage of development, it clearly draws on the ideas of independence, input from experts and laypersons, and strong connections to policymakers (the report stresses the need for a physical presence in Washington DC).

Does the idea have legs?  I’m not sure yet, although I would be the first to agree that movement along these lines is desperately needed if the US is to develop strategic and sustainable technology innovation policies.  Looking to the future, it’s hard to justify letting innovation run its course without any form of intervention – if the recent economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that.  As advances in science and technology, global communications and coupling between humanity and the environment in which we live continue to converge together, there is a social and economic imperative to help ensure technology innovation leads to long-term progress.  And assuming that everything will fall out in the wash without proactive intervention is both naive and short sighted.  The only real question is how to go about controlling the future.

I would argue strongly that, as stakeholders in the future, citizens have a right and a responsibility to be a part the process.  Richard’s proposal is definitely a significant move in this direction.  It’s not perfect – I have questions over the legitimacy of the process, sources of funding, the ability of the proposed network to make a difference, and translating academic ideals into practical reality.  Nevertheless, it’s an exciting and innovative step forward, and one that I will be following with interest.

I don’t particularly like the thought that we are slaves to innovation – I may be overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that humanity has the ability to choose future courses that are more likely to improve people’s lives.  But as our “inventions” get increasingly more sophisticated, it’s going to take more than luck and good intentions to ensure that what looks good on paper doesn’t turn out to be yet another “bad idea.” Hopefully, innovations like ECAST will help empower people to work together towards a future in which technology innovation is more likely to solve problems, than create new ones.

_______________________________________

I feel I should add a disclaimer to this post, as Richard Sclove’s report was published by an organization I was a part of until recently – the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  However, I was not in any way associated with the development and writing of the report, and indeed the first time I saw it was earlier today when it was publicly released.

A guest blog by Sophia Collins, producer of the on-line teen science event “I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!”

“itz hometime but we want to stay and ask questions”

These are the words of a 14 year old student, at a school in inner-city London. The school has some of the poorest academic results in the school district, well below the national average. And yet a classroom science activity had the students so gripped that when the bell went for the end of the school day, they insisted on staying for another 15 minutes to ask more questions.

The students were having an MSN-style online chat with some scientists. They’d started with fairly simple questions, ‘How long have you been a scientist?’ and ‘Why is the sky blue?’. But then something happens – the immediacy of the chat format, the inventiveness of teenage brains, the unexpected experience of a grown-up seriously answering their questions – and the chat starts getting richer. You can see the ideas bouncing off each other and going in all directions. By the end of the chat this class had moved from a question about whether science could ever stop aging, to discussing what the world would be like if people didn’t die.

And there were all sorts of other random conversations along the way. Everything from favourite pop stars, to how blood circulates, to what it feels like if another scientist scoops your work. After another chat, one of my staff (a usually cynical young man) brought a tear to my eye by declaring it was “an honour to be associated with the event”.  When I asked why, he said, “The kids are so excited, and they are asking questions I know I’ve never asked or even thought of…”

Live chats like this are part of the event I run, I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!, which Andrew blogged so kindly about a couple of weeks ago. We were blown away the first time students insisted on staying after their lesson finished, “when normally they’ve got their coats on before the bell has finished ringing” as one teacher told us. After a while though we started taking it for granted, it happened so often.

As well as these live chats, students submit questions for the scientists to answer on our website. This gives an opportunity to go into more depth, and extend the conversation over days Feel free to have a browse, if you don’t mind getting distracted for the next couple of hours. We’re constantly amused, intrigued and impressed by the questions students ask, from “What is it about humans that led to us inventing science?” to “Do you think that robots will ever rule the earth?”.

One scientist told me that this was “the most science-related fun I’ve had in ages,” while a teacher emailed to tell me her class was splitting into fan clubs for the different scientists, “with the sort of devotion they’ve only had for pop stars up until now.”

Teenagers are notoriously the worst audience to engage, so what is it that gets this response from them? I’ve spent years working on this event format, and naturally I’ve got a few theories.

Doing it online makes it less intimidating and more intimate.

Before you all write in and complain, I’m not saying we should do away with face-to-face. I think that can be a great way of getting kids engaging with scientists. But do you remember people coming in to school to give talks when you were a teenager?

Who put their hands up to ask questions at the end? Usually, the clever kids who can think of questions the teacher will approve of. And possibly the naughty ones who want to be cheeky.

I’ll tell you who didn’t. Not the shy students. Not the ones who got lost five minutes into the talk and really would have liked to ask what the guy was actually talking about. Not the ordinary middling students who can’t think of a smart question but desperately want to know if it’s scary sometimes being a policemen or where astronauts go to pee. Doing it online makes it much easier for kids to ask the questions they actually want to ask, and then they can start getting interested.

Teenagers are actually desperate for the chance to talk to grown ups.

For many kids the only adults they ever get to talk to are their parents and their teachers. They are on the cusp of the big scary adult world, they really don’t know what it’s going to be like and they want people to answer their questions!

Once they realise these real live scientists are actually going to do this, those questions about the adult world start pouring out. “Do you get on with the people you work with?”, “Do you ever get bored at work?”, “How did you decide what to study at University?”.

I also think sometimes they can’t quite believe they’ll be able to pull off being a grown up (I’m 38, and I still have that doubt…). And becoming a scientist? Way too intimidating! Lots of teenagers are convinced that scientists are all Einstein-like geniuses, so they couldn’t become one themselves. When they realise, as one girl put it, that “scientists are just like normal people!” it’s a revelation. The scientists talk about their holidays, their pets, their favourite jokes and suddenly students can see that these are people like them, and they could grow up and be a scientist too.

And lastly, the true secret weapon…

Giving students some power engages them much more deeply.

The scientists are competing for a prize of £500 ($770) to communicate their work and the students are voting who gets it.

This makes the young people feel that they are being taken seriously, for once. Don’t we all get turned off things if we aren’t listened to and feel we don’t have a say? No-one wants to be lectured at, but that is what happens to teenagers all the time.

But it’s not just that they feel less ignored; giving students a vote and some money to allocate makes everything real – it’s not just an essay or a classroom debate about science ethics. It’s not an academic exercise. We’re saying, here’s some actual money – who do you think should get it?

To answer that question for themselves, students have to really think.  And they raise all sorts of issues: How can we know what the outcome of research will be? How can we weigh one kind of knowledge against another? Imagine you had a medical advance that would save a small number of lives, how could you possibly weigh that against a different medical advance that improved the lives of a much bigger number of people? These are thorny issues in science funding and teenagers engage with them, because they are actually being asked to decide.

I’m not pretending that all the teenagers cast their vote for the highest of reasons. Some will vote for the scientist who likes the same band as them. Or whose joke made them laugh. Or who’s got the nicest photo. But I’m prepared to bet they still do that having thought more about complex science and society issues than they were probably going to otherwise. And it leaves them with a sense that these issues are something it’s possible for them to have a say about, so it’s worth them thinking about them.

We need a populace who can engage with science and engage in discussions about science. There are decisions that have to be made as a society, not by experts behind closed doors. Students who’ve cast their vote in I’m a Scientist feel that science is a thing they are part of. And that makes all the difference.

____________________

I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here! was run in the UK for two weeks between March 15-26.  Around 1,400 teenagers in 70 schools around the UK participated, probing and evaluating the work of 25 scientists through on-line questions, answers and chats.  The next event in the UK is scheduled for June 14 – 25 2010. The event is kindly funded by medical research charity the Wellcome Trust, to promote public engagement with biomedicine. For more information on how to participate as a scientist, check here.  For teachers, further information (including Creative Commons teaching resources which anyone can use) can be found here.

Sophia Collins is producer of the on-line teen science event “I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!” and its sister event, “I’m a Councillor, Get me out of Here!” which gets teenagers engaged with local politics. Her background was in science communication, mainly in TV science shows, before getting involved with I’m a Councillor in 2004.

The quality’s a bit flaky, but I thought I would upload this video for a bit of fun.  It’s the first – and possibly the last – time I will simultaneously attempt to unravel the mysteries of nanotechnology… while baking a cake!

Filmed at the National Museum of American History as part of Nanodays 2010, the presentation was part of a public dialogue on  nanotechnology.  My task: help set the scene for a discussion on who should oversee the responsible development of nanotechnology.

Wanting to try something a little different, I thought I would play around with cooking as an analogy for nanotechnology.  The analogy is a useful one – I only scrape the surface of where it could be taken here.  But whether it was a wise decision to actually cook in public – well, I’ll leave judgment on that one to you!

One thing the video doesn’t show is how the cake turned out.  I would like to say that it was light, moist and delicious.  However, just in case someone posts pictures of the actual result, I have to be straight with you – it sucked!  Personally, I blame the lab oven provided by the Smithsonian – I can cook, honest!  Perhaps a bonus lesson though is that, even with the best preparations, unanticipated consequences are always possible – whether baking a cake or making the latest nanotech-enabled gizmo!

A guest blog by David H. Guston, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University.

The President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) has recently put the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) through its biennial paces.  Launched in 2000 by President Clinton, authorized in 2003 by the 21^st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act, and reviewed in 2005 and 2008 by PCAST (yes, an odd vision of “biennial”), the NNI is now a decade old.  For better and for ill, it is starting to show its age.

First, full disclosure.  I direct a Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the NNI to investigate the societal aspects of nanotechnologies.  So my Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) gets a bit more than $1M per year from NNI.  Second, as can be seen in the recent PCAST review document [PDF, 4.8 MB], I also testified before the working group that produced the report.  Third, one of the PCAST members is my college roommate’s mother (but that’s *not* why I was called to testify!).

Whew!

Since the early days of NNI, as well as since the 2003 Act, public engagement with nanotechnology was supposed to be on the agenda.  The early reports by NSF on the societal aspects of nanotechnology refer to the productive role that public engagement can play, and the relevant passage from the 2003 Act 2(B)(10)(d) authorizes:

“public input and outreach to be integrated into the Program by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.”

Bluntly, however, public engagement has not been implemented as robustly as it might have been.

In May 2006, the NNI offered a promising if tardy start with a large workshop on public participation, organized by the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) and sponsored by the Nano-scale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee.  The two-day program generated considerable excitement among the larger-than-expected number of attendees.  Yet, while the presentations from the workshop are available on line, no report on the workshop seems to have ever been finalized for distribution on the NNI website.

The major messages of that meeting, as well as almost all relevant scholarship in public engagement in science and technology over the last decade and a half, are that:

• Communication between the lay-public (which is not monolithic) and the scientific community (which isn’t, either) needs to be two-way.
• Such communication needs to be not just about scientific facts but also about technological applications and social values.
• And the purpose of this communication must not be limited to the faulty formula of “more knowledge on the part of the public will mean more support for research and technological applications.”

Nevertheless, the nanotechnocracy has generally cast public engagement in terms entirely instrumental for the success of, well, nanotechnology.

The first PCAST (2005:38) report [PDF, 4 MB], e.g. argued directly that:

“[t]o sustain this [high level of public] support, the scientific community and the Federal agencies that fund scientific research must communicate more directly with the public, not through surrogates such as the entertainment industry…. Through the NNI website and through outreach activities at the NSF-funded centers and DOE user facilities, the NNI has established channels to communicate with members of various stakeholder groups, including the broader public.”

Similarly, recommendation 6.1 of PCAST (2008:34-35) [PDF, 1.3 MB] was to:

“[d]emonstrate more clearly to the public the value of nanotechnology and NNI-supported research and development.”

The first report (PCAST 2005:38) even attempted a pre-emptive defense of its practices, reporting that its working group “has held open meetings focusing on nanotechnology issues, which have provided the public with several opportunities to provide input.”  But the ability of the general public – as opposed to organized and special interests – to participate substantively in “open meetings” of executive agency committees is highly constrained, which is likely why the passage in the 2003 Act cited above calls for open, interactive public forums like citizens’ panels and consensus conferences.

Taking guidance from this specific language, CNS-ASU has made public engagement a centerpiece of its activities.  In Spring 2008, CNS-ASU organized the most ambitious public engagement activity around nanotechnology in the US, the National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF).  Modeled after the Danish consensus conference but distributed across six locales across the United States, the NCTF on “nanotechnologies and human enhancement” demonstrated that a high-quality deliberative activity can be organized at a national scale in the US, and that a representative selection of lay-citizens can come to discerning judgments about nanotechnologies while they are still emergent (Hamlett et al. 2008, PDF 184 KB).  While there are reasonable concerns about the quality of the particular online component of the process (Delborne et al. 2009, PDF, 160 KB) and the demands that such intensive activities place on citizens (Kleinman et al. 2009), the NCTF process is a sound demonstration upon which to build future citizen deliberations (Philbrick and Barandiaran 2009).

In other words, large-scale public engagement activities around nanotechnology are ready for prime time.  As we move into a next decade of large-scale funding and the first forays of regulation, it is time for the NNI to follow through on the early promise of its vision of public engagement in nanotechnology for the benefit of the public, and not just for the benefit of nanotechnology.

This week, the NNI is holding a workshop on Risk Management Methods & Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology, which includes a 15 minute slot for public comment.  David Guston will not be there – the workshop clashes with Passover – AM

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/30/public-engagement-with-nanotechnology/feed/ 24 http://2020science.org/2010/03/24/im-a-scientist-seriously-addictive-science-engagement/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/24/im-a-scientist-seriously-addictive-science-engagement/#comments Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:41:05 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2993

The website “I’m a Scientist – Get me out of here” should come with a government warning – something along the lines of “Visiting this site could seriously disrupt your professional, social and personal live while altering your perceptions on getting kids hooked on science – proceed with extreme caution.”  In fact I would probably say that, unless you are immune to addiction, have no sense of humor or couldn’t give a toss about science, just don’t go there – it’s not worth the risk!

Frivolity aside, I’m a Scientist... is a brilliant concept. For two weeks between March 15-26, around 2000 teenagers in 70 schools around the UK are probing and evaluating the work of 25 scientists through on-line questions, answers and chats.  And one by one they are voting out or “evicting” their least favorite “contestants” – leaving five winners who walk away with a £500 prize – think X-factor, Big Brother or American Idol for scientists, and you begin to get the picture!

Participating kids are free to ask the scientists anything – and I mean anything – as long as it doesn’t contravene the House Rules.  Which means that they clearly have the upper hand here.  But this also breaks down barriers, encourages dialogue, and leads to very effective engagement (for the scientists as well as the kids).  Recent questions have ranged from the bizarre to the deep, including:

• Do you like green eggs and ham? (Both love and cringe at the response given!)
• Pirates of Ninjas?
• Have you ever regretted choosing a career in science or maths? and if so why? when?
• What is the most interesting thing you have ever done?
• What colour is a chameleaon sitting on a mirror? and
• Does the Fibonacci sequence and the golden rectangle appear in genetics? (as it is generally everywhere in nature)

This is only a small smattering of the hundreds of conversations going on – previous warnings aside, I would seriously recommend you check these and others out if you are at all interested in enthusing, educating and engaging kids on science.  The beauty of the event is that, while it is primarily for the participants, anyone can poke around and take a look at what’s going on!

But the questions and answers are only part of the event’s success.  The evictions – hard as they may be on the unlucky scientists – make the thing all the more addictive.  This aspect of I’m a Scientist is clearly grabbing the kids’ attention and pulling them in big-time.  But it’s also holding the scientists’ feet to the fire, and helping them hone their skills as communicators – a perfect win-win!

This particular event finishes on March 26 – so you need to move fast if you want to see it in action.  The first evictions were yesterday, and between now and Friday there will be one set of eviction per day, leaving the winners as the last scientists standing on Friday afternoon.

But be warned – it could seriously alter your perceptions of how to get kids hooked on science!

______________________________________________________________

For more information on I’m a Scientist check out http://imascientist.org.uk/more-info

The event is split up into five zones.  Follow the links to see recent questions in the Brain Zone, the Genes Zone, the Helium Zone, the Hydrogen Zone and the Lithium Zone

If you liked this – and what’s not to like? – the next I’m a Scientist event in the UK is scheduled for June 14 – 25.

I was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago where engaging the public (or “publics” to be more accurate) in science came up.  In the course of discussions, I mentioned an initiative by Research Councils UK to involve members of the public in developing a call for research proposals on the use of nanotechnology in healthcare. To which one eminent US scientist responded with words to the effect of “that sounds like a really bad idea!”

The exchange confirmed a suspicion I have had for some time that public engagement on science isn’t taken that seriously in the US.  Sure, there’s lots going on at various levels to communicate science to the US public, and to make sure people put science “in its rightful place” in their lives – which to most scientists is somewhere above God and family.  But strategic and coordinated action on engaging people – entering into a two-way exchange of ideas that potentially influences both sides – that’s much harder to find.

So I was fascinated by a series of documents that landed on my virtual desk this morning from the UK that outline Britain’s approach to public engagement on science – including why anyone would want to do it in he first place!

The documents are from Research Councils UK (RCUK) – a strategic partnership between the seven UK Research Councils that enables them to work together synergistically on key issues.  The documents set out RCUK’s strategy for public engagement with research, provide a guide to researchers and teachers  on engaging young people with cutting edge research, and outline the benefits of public engagement for researchers.

The three documents map out a clear rationale for why public engagement on science is important, and how the UK intends to pursue it.  Take this for instance from the updated Public Engagement with Research strategy [PDF, 80 KB]:

“If we involve and listen to the public (and encourage our research communities to do so) then our decisions and research will be informed by their views, and therefore more likely to have enhanced impact in return for the investment.

Similarly, if we talk with the public (and encourage our research communities to talk to the public) about the outputs of our research and their implications and applications then society will share in the benefits of that knowledge, whether for their health, wealth or culture, and therefore helping to maximise the impact of that research.

And if we encourage researchers to interact with schools to enrich students’ experiences then we can help improve the supply of skilled people to the research base and the UK economy and encourage more to act as informed citizens.”

There follows a detailed strategic plan for recognizing and responding to public views, inspiring young people and supporting researchers.

The second of the three documents takes on interactions between young people and research.  Titled “Engaging Young People with Cutting Edge Research: a guide for researchers and teachers” [PDF, 900 KB], it provides clearly laid out information for researchers and teachers, together with resources for both groups.  The guide doesn’t hedge – headlining the section for researchers [the first section in the guide] is the question

“Working with schools and young people – how can it benefit me as a researcher?”

This is a hundred and eighty degree departure – and a very welcome one – from old-school approaches, which inevitably asked what young people can get out of science.  Here’s a quick summary – from the report – of what researchers might expect to gain from working with young people:

The third report builds on this theme by addressing the broader benefits of public engagement to researchers.  In the rather aptly titled “What’s in it for me? The benefits of public engagement for researchers” [PDF, 1000 KB] RCUK examine four benefits to researchers of engaging with the public through the eyes of researchers themselves.  In a series of case studies, the document coniders career inspiration, raising your profile, developing skills and enhancing your research.

It’s that last point that particularly grabbed my attention when reading through the document, as it gets back to the heart of response I found from that US researcher to the idea of the “public” actually having an influence on research.

This section of the report consists of twelve accounts where researchers have benefited from engaging with people a long way removed from the lab.  They span medical research to environmental research to astronomy.  And the unifying factor – research that is enriched and better-informed by talking with and listening to others.  Take this quote from Dr David Chadwick for instance from North Wyke Research. Talking about engaging people as part of his work studying how the management of livestock and their manures affect water quality, David said

“It vastly changed networking opportunities, bringing different experts together, and has been the most enjoyable project in my career to date”

Or this from Dr Paul Curzon at the University of London on engaging with the public on research into topics related to human error:

“The data obtained from this was used in a publication which won a best paper prize, and has opened up a novel research methodology.”

The accounts are anecdotal.  But nevertheless they attest to the power of opening up research to people who are affected by it, interested in it and have something to offer to it – given half the chance.

The UK has been bitten by the failures to engage people on science effectively in the past, and is learning rapidly from past mistakes.  The result is a strong strategy that changes the dynamic between researchers and the public; gives more people than ever before the opportunity to be active partners in science rather than passive observers; and adds considerable value to research and innovation.  Rather than retreating into the attitude of “that sounds like a really bad idea,” Britain is developing a “technology ratchet” that could give it a valuable edge over the coming years.

As a Brit, that gives me a sense of pride in the country – we seem to have got this one right, or at least seem to be on the right path.  But as a Brit living in the US, I can’t help thinking “what on earth has gone wrong on this side of the Atlantic?”  Why is is that, while the UK is developing strategies to make more people an integral part of the science endeavor, the US is still plagued by an attitude that the public should be seen and not heard.

I suspect it’s because the momentum of the vast US science and technology enterprise has carried it forward despite a growing need to rethink the relationship between science and society.  But that momentum won’t last for ever.  And when it runs out, how will the US go about getting science back on track?

I don’t know the answer to that one.  But at least they will have an excellent role model a mere pond-hop away come the crunch

A new report released today from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Expert Group on Science and Trust emphasizes the need to address risk and uncertainty in developing and using science and technology within society.  “Acknowledging risk and uncertainty” is the second of eight broad aspirations from the independent group, established to develop a UK action plan to “enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “license to operate” is socially robust.”

The report “Starting a National Conversation about Good Science” [PDF, 478 KB] is a rich, informative and insightful document, that demands careful consideration.  It comes out of a group assembled to consider new mechanisms to increase public trust in science and engineering; review the impact of the existing science-related ethical code of practice; examine how movement of knowledge and people across the different sectors can be facilitated in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of science and society activities; and think about better ways to evaluate the impacts of science and society initiatives.  Despite this being a purely British affair, many of the recommendations are relevant far beyond the confines of a UK-centered “national conversation,”  and will hopefully stimulate a global dialogue on what is a global challenge.

Amidst the eight “broad aspirations” of the group, which span public judgment about science and awareness of the scientific process, to underpinning science-informed decision-making and good science governance, I was particularly struck by an emphasis on risk and uncertainty.  This may be because in a few weeks I will becoming increasingly involved in risk, uncertainty and science-informed decision-making, as I take over as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan.  But beyond this, I was struck by the group’s recognition that, from the publics’ various perspectives, uncertainties surrounding science and technology – their implications in particular – are often more important than the science and technology themselves.

The overarching aim of the Science and Trust Expert Group -  and of this report – was

“To enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “licence to operate” is socially robust.”

In this context,the group recommended that

“Expert advice to Government should identify and characterize uncertainties; policy makers should communicate clearly actions that take account of inevitable uncertainties; efforts should be made to support public judgements about risks and uncertainties.”

In particular, the report emphasizes the need to address uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts and benefits of emerging technologies “in the wider context of science and society relations.”

This emphasis on uncertainty is particularly welcome, and closely aligns with where I hope to be taking the University of Michigan Risk Science Center over the next few years.  New technologies – or innovative ways of using existing technologies for that matter – lead to inherently uncertain futures.  There is a great danger of mistaking this uncertainty for risk (risk is a reasonably well-understood chance of something bad happening; uncertainty is a poor understanding of whether good or bad will come out of a course of action) – with the result that there is a tendency to shy away from potentially beneficial technologies, simply because we don’t know how they are going to unfold.  On the other hand, uncertainty means that we do need to move forward carefully, in case there are very real and relevant risks lurking in the shadows.  The trick is to develop better ways of handling uncertainty so that the best possible choices are made.

Being up-front about uncertainty and potential risks associated with science and technology is a critical step toward developing conversations and actions that underpin a science-informed approach to minimizing and otherwise handling uncertainty and risk.  One particularly good resource that the report recommends is A Worriers’s Guide to Risk [PDF, 222 KB] – a one-pager intended to help everyone make more sense of the seemingly unending series of stories on risk.

In its specific recommendations and actions, the Science and Trust Expert Group includes:

• Support Government to take better account of risks and uncertainties in policy making;
• Support public judgements about risks and uncertainties inherent in the scientific advisory process;
• Support policy makers to take better account of public attitudes and values to the risks, benefits and uncertainties in the governance of emerging technologies;
• Enable wider discussions in the media and elsewhere on uncertainty inherent in the scientific process; and
• Enable greater discussion of risk.

Although these are aimed fair and square at the UK, they provide a valuable template for a global conversation about good science, and its role within society.  Hopefully, now that the UK has set the pace, we will see this develop as an International conversation about good science.

Prompted by a blog post by Stephen Hill this morning – and a flurry or Twitter responses to it – here’s a quick question on science and trust:

Take Our Poll

More on this in a later blog.

A guest blog by Gary Kass, Principal Specialist in Strategic Futures at Natural England

The London-based Science Media Centre (SMC) describes itself as “an independent venture working to promote the voices, stories and views of the scientific community to the national news media when science is in the headlines” and sets out its “ultimate goal” as being “to facilitate more scientists to engage with the media, in the hope that the public will have improved access to accurate, evidence-based scientific information about the stories of the day.”

Recently, the SMC produced a discussion document on “Climate Science in the Media” aimed at scientists and science press officers to encapsulate “some of the lessons we believe science has learned from previous media frenzies.”  The SMC acknowledges that people may disagree with some of the advice and wants to stimulate a debate.  Roger Pielke’s blog already has a discussion going on this already and this is my contribution to the debate.

Having been a scientific adviser to the UK parliament and government when MMR and GM broke and being responsible for delivering the government’s policy on public engagement with science between 2004 and 2007, I can fully understand why SMC is doing this and agree with much of the advice set out in its guidance…

For me, though, Point 9 (headed “Hang on in there – it will calm down”) is the most helpful.  It includes a great a quote from Michael Simmons, Director of Populous: “People tend to make judgements over time based on a whole range of different sources.” This is the most important point in the SMC’s advice:  don’t panic!  And there are good reasons to support this.

The social amplification of risk discourse supports the idea that people (let’s not pigeon-hole individuals under the patronising heading of ‘the public’) are sophisticated consumers of media:

• people calibrate their media (i.e. they rarely every access only one source and they play different sources off each other to arrive at their views)
• the media gives people things to talk about but does not tell them what to think; and, as they get new things to think about, people change their opinions – but, crucially, there’s no way that you can predict how they’ll change them
• finally people will often consume media that supports their own views anyway (psychologists call this confirmation bias).

When things like ClimateGate happen, many (but not all) in the science community panic, but in my view much of this is down to some scientists’ continued misunderstanding of both the public and the impact of media.  I have argued long and hard about the need to turn Public Understanding of Science on its head and to build capacity in the science community for scientists to understand the publics (from PUS to SUP).

It is not ‘science’ or ‘scientists’ that people distrust (I commissioned two national opinion polls over a number of years that showed this quite clearly).  What people are uneasy about is the ‘governance’ of science and technology.  Where people smell a rat and suspect collusion they will react against it.

But here’s the rub:  often the only way that they can really express their views is through negative reaction against the science or technology at hand (be it climate change, nanotech, GM, MMR or nuclear power)… It is what the social scientists call ‘affect’:  people don’t really take against technology itself, but many dislike arrogant (and often this means American and multi-national) companies and the feeling that Government is colluding with them to force it down their throats.  This feeling is not specific to any single area of science or technology, but is a manifestation of wider social trends such as declining trust in government and big business.  If scientists had a better understanding of publics and what’s behind much of the reaction they rail against, they might sleep easier in their beds.

But while science is about contested knowledge, in the media-driven, circus-like atmosphere we live in now, scientists can’t expect to have the luxury of the time, space and seclusion for considered reflection, testing and evaluation… it’s science in the wild (or ‘post-normal science’ as Jerry Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz would have it).

However, many in the science community, in not understanding this fully, tend to think that ‘the public’ (and many only ever see the multiple publics in the singular) reaction is against the technology itself and then compound this error by extending this to a belief that because people are against a particular technology that they are against all areas of science and all technologies – often manifest in accusations that people are ‘anti-science’, ‘luddite’ or ‘irrational’.  This is a dangerous fallacy.  In a democracy, we should neither expect nor desire everyone to be unquestioningly supportive of all science and all technology in all situations… North Korea anyone?

Lastly, while in government I tried (with limited success) to convince the natural science community to realise that in situations like this it is perhaps best to go to the social science and humanities experts to get their views about these wider issues.  It is insufficient to rely on natural scientists to defend their science and the way they do it.  While scientists have a role in identifying risks, they are not judge and jury and the scope for wider stakeholder and public perspectives in framing, evaluating and managing risks is vast.

I ask this as a natural scientist who woke up to this need to be ‘reflexive” in the early 1990s after banging my head against a brick wall with what I thought  was the classic ‘sound science and professional judgement’ approach.  The simple fact is that the world doesn’t work like that and there are decades of social science and philosophy that have explored the nature and workings of science and the interactions with publics from which we can all learn.  For me, the key lesson is to avoid assuming a deficit of either understanding or trust on the part of ‘the public’ towards ‘science’ and to focus more on building a trustworthy system for science and technology – with an ARTful (accountable, responsible and transparent) governance at its heart.

I wouldn’t wish to give the SMC advice, but clearly, enabling greater reflection by scientists on their capacity and willingness to gain a more sophisticated understanding of publics and their limitations in addressing public concerns and shaping policy, might not go amiss.

____________________

Gary Kass is currently Principal Specialist in Strategic Futures at Natural England, one of the UK’s statutory environmental advisory bodies.  Prior to this, Gary was Assistant Director, Science and Society in the UK Government’s Office of Science and Innovation and Senior Scientific Fellow at the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

Back in February of 2009, the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the use of nanotechnology in food products and the food industry.  Chaired by Lord Krebs (the son of Hans Adolf Krebs – best known for describing the mechanisms of energy uptake and release in cells), a small group of peers was assembled to address the potential benefits and use of nanotechnology in the food sector, arising health and safety issues, regulation, communication and public engagement.  On January 8 2010, the subcommittee’s much-anticipated report was published.  Concluding with 32 recommendations covering nanotechnology and food commercialization, potential risks, regulation and public communication and engagement, it is perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative report on the subject to be published to date.

The UK House of Lords has, on occasion, been depicted as an anachronistic institution full of political has-beens who enjoy nothing more than a quiet snooze, lulled to sleep by the interminable droning of their peers.  Of course, reforms brought in over the past decade have done a lot to shatter this illusion.  But if there are any lingering doubts, this report should dispel them.   Under the expert guidance of Lord Krebs, this group of sharp minded and well-informed members of the House of Lords has provided an insightful and balanced perspective on the opportunities and challenges of using nanotechnology (or “nanotechnologies” as they more appropriately refer to them) in the food industry.

The process was helped enormously by an extensive consultation process.  Fifty written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of oral testimonies and meetings with experts and stakeholders in Washington DC all helped to support the committee in its assessment.  The final document reflects the input of these stakeholders, frequently citing input from industry, academics, government agencies and Non-Government Organizations.  Yet despite the breadth of information submitted, there is a strong sense that these inputs were carefully weighed and evaluated by the committee before they drew their conclusions and recommendations.

The report is clearly written and accessible, and I would recommend strongly anyone working with nanotechnology and food to read it in its entirety.  I suspect that it is going to become a significant and influential factor in the development of responsible and acceptable uses of nanotechnology in food products.

For those with less time and interest, I would recommend reading the summary at least, which captures the essence of the report in a couple of pages.

Just to whet your appetite though, here’s my initial impression of the report and its recommendations in four areas – Nanotechnology and food, knowledge gaps, regulation, and communication & outreach.

Nanotechnology and Food

The report shows a remarkable level of sophistication in its evaluation of nanotechnology and food.  It recognizes the long history of using technologies to modify food, recognizes consumer caution over the scientific manipulation of food products, and acknowledges the complexities surrounding the introduction of potentially beneficial new technologies.  It also highlights the rather indistinct lines between nanoscale materials that have been present in foods forever (such as protein nanoparticles in ricotta cheese) compared to those more recently and intentionally introduced, and new materials that behave in unusual ways compared to those that are just small.  This clarity of perception underpins many of the report’s recommendations.

The potential of nanomaterials to add value to food products is readily acknowledged in the report:

“Nanomaterials have a range of potential applications in the food sector that may offer benefits to both consumers and industry.  These include creating foods with unaltered taste but lower fat, salt or sugar levels, or improved packaging that keeps food fresher for longer or tells consumers if the food inside is spoiled.”

But the authors go on to note that the number of nanotechnology-based food products on the market is currently small.  To help ensure the responsible development of nanotechnologies in the food sector, recommendations are made on government actions to “ensure the potential benefits to consumers and society are supported,”  including improving the effectiveness of technology transfer between researchers and industry.

Counterbalancing the technological promise of nanotechnology, the report’s authors are also highly aware of the broader social issues surrounding the use of emerging technologies in food.  And as a result, the majority of the report’s recommendations are focused on addressing and responding to these issues.

Knowledge gaps

Despite the promise of nanotechnology in the food sector, the report highlights a number of critical knowledge gaps to developing safe and trusted nanotech-enabled food products.  Again, the discussion is informed and comprehensive.

At the outset, the report notes that the subcommittee “received no evidence, however, of instances where ingested nanomaterials have harmed human health,” dispelling fears of speculative scaremongering (although I see that early press coverage is focusing on risks and uncertainties). At the same time the report’s authors acknowledge that the

“novel properties of engineered nanomaterials may affect how such materials interact with the body and the risks they present to human health.”

Six areas of concern are flagged where novel nanomaterials might cause unexpected harm, covering the influence of particle size, solubility & persistence, chemical & catalytic reactivity, material shape, anti-microbial effects and agglomeration & aggregation.  Despite these concerns – which have been raised repeatedly by researchers and others over the past few years – the report notes a dearth of research on the “impact, behaviour and interactions of nanomaterials in the [gastrointestinal] tract, including their effect on gut flora.”

Targeted research to fill this knowledge gap is a key recommendation of the report.

Regulation

The report’s authors devote a large chunk of space to the issue of regulation – addressing regulatory coverage and regulatory enforcement.  Although somewhat dry for a lay reader, these sections of the report tackle directly a number of issues that have plagued discussions of nanomaterial regulation for some time, including definitions, working with mixtures and labeling.

The report’s authors are very clear that a regulatory definition of nanomaterials is essential.  But they are also clear that any definition should be based on functionality rather than size – throwing out the idea that there is anything special about the traditional 100 nm cut point for nanomaterials.

The argument is made that, from a regulatory perspective, what is important is when a material starts to behave differently from what is expected – when the way that it interacts with the body is no longer the same as what is observed with a larger lump of material with the same chemistry.  This may happen at very small particle diameters with some materials – just tens of nanomaters.  But it may also occur at relatively large particle diameters for other materials.  As a result, the report recommends that regulatory definitions of nanomaterials

“should not include a size limit of 100 nm but instead refer to the ‘nanoscale’ to ensure that all materials with a dimension under 1000 nm are considered.”

This placement of the upper limit of the nanoscale at 1000 nm may well be the most controversial aspect of the report.  But the emphasis on functionality is a welcome one – as long as we can define what functionality means!

In the report’s recommendations it is also very clear that, for regulatory purposes, any definition of ‘nanomaterials’ should exclude those created from natural substances, “except for nanomaterials that have been deliberately chosen or engineered to take advantage of their nanoscale properties.”

The report also touches on the contentious issue of mixtures – powders that contain some fraction of particles which are nanometer-sized.  What do you do if you use a powder in a food product that also contains a small number of nanometer-scale particles (as most powders invariably will)?  There isn’t much insight into how to resolve this issue in the report (or elsewhere for that matter), but the report’s authors do recommend that the UK Government develops guidelines that clearly state what fraction of a powder needs to be at the nanoscale before nano-specific regulatory oversight is triggered.  This is critical to the effective regulation of nanomaterials in food products if products are not to be inappropriately under- or over-regulated.  (Imagine a scenario where a manufacturer could claim exemption from nano regs because a small fraction of a material was larger than the nanoscale, or a regulator over-zealously  applied regulations by insisting that a conventional material containing a small fraction of nanoparticles was a nanomaterial. The only thing worse would be a complete lack of clarity on when a product containing a range of particle sizes was considered nano and when it was not – which unfortunately is where we are at the moment!)

On labeling, the report states

“Consumers can expect to have access to information about the food they eat.  But blanket labeling of nanomaterials on packages is not, in our view, the right approach to providing information about the application of nanotechnologies.”

Rather, the report’s authors recommend a public registry of foods containing nanomaterials.

Communication & Outreach

Six of the report’s recommendations deal directly with effective communication and public engagement.  From the outset, the report’s authors recognize the importance of public attitudes towards food, and the need to engage consumers in the use of nanotechnologies in food products.  The report’s summary opens

“People are understandably sensitive about changes to the food they eat.  In the past the introduction of novel technologies in the food sector has sometimes met with resistance or even holstility.  The public’s attitude toward food is influenced by a number of considerations including a fear of novel risks, the level of trust in the effectiveness of regulation, and other wider social and psychological factors (shaped by views on health, the environment and science).  The development of nanotechnologies in the food sector may well elicit some of these concerns.”

Later on, the report states that “our witnesses confirmed that public attitudes towards the use of nanotechnologies were among the most important factors in determining their future in the food sector.”

Transparency within the industry was seen as critical to addressing potential public fears and concerns.  Yet after talking with stakeholders, the subcommittee came to the conclusion that the food industry are being far from transparent at the moment, and that this may potentially damage the responsible use of nanotechnologies in foods in the long run.  They “found it regrettable that evidence indicated that, far from being transparent about its activities, the food industry was refusing to talk about work in this area.”

A number of witnesses stressed the reticence of food companies to talk about nanotechnology openly, for fear of a loss of consumer confidence.  Franz Kampers from Wageningen University told the subcommittee

“the industry is very, very reluctant to communicate that they are using nanotechnology in food … because they are very much afraid oof the reaction of consumers to the product.”

Yet after hearing evidence from a number of quarters, the subcommittee concluded that

“this is exactly the type of behaviour which may bring about the public reaction which it is trying to avert.”

As a result the subcommittee recommended that the UK Government work with the industry to ensure greater openness and transparency about what they are developing, and what their plans are for using nanotechnology in food products.

The subcommittee also stressed the need for a robust Government communication strategy.  They praised the Government for establishing the Nano & Me website, which provides anyone who is interested with accessible information on nanotechnology – including its use in food.  Unfortunately, they failed to note that Nano & Me is under threat because the UK government isn’t stumping up paltry sums of money to ensure its upkeep!

Finally, the report emphasizes the need for public engagement, which provides people with the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.  They acknowledge that this is a complex task, and have some interesting perspectives on how to proceed here.  In particular, the suggest that the provision of engagement opportunities might in itself be sufficient – that people will be reassured that someone has the opportunity to engaging on their behalf – and that the voice of the public”is often most effectively mediated by representative groups such as consumer groups, non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and individuals with a particular interest in this topic.”

I’m not sure how far I agree with these suggestions.  But perhaps the most important thing here is that the subcommittee recognize that engagement is about giving people a voice and a place at the table, not just about communication.

These are just some of the things that jumped out at me as I read through this report today.  There are many other aspects to it which deserve greater attention.  Not all of the comments and recommendations will meet with universal approval I am sure.  But without a doubt, this is the most thoughtful, informed and insightful piece on nanotechnology and food I have read in a long time.

The full House of Lords Nanotechnologies and Food report is available here.

Brain-candy for the intellectually incapacitated.

To help the brain cells recuperate from over-exertion (and quite possibly over-indulgence) this Holiday season, here’s a short compendium of mindless games – the sort of things scientists and others indulge in when they think no-one’s looking!

The selection rules here were simple: Anything that didn’t hold my attention for more than 5 seconds, required a double-digit IQ, or was associated with “learning goals,” was ditched faster than a game of Klingon Scrabble.

Of course, you’re expected to pooh pooh the resulting collection to friends and colleagues as being nothing but mindless drivel – got to keep the side up after all!  But when you’re alone, check out the games.  Believe me, your over-exerted brain cells will thank you!

Happy Holidays

___________________

Science Crossword

I thought I’d start with at least a pretense of intellectual stimulation with this science crossword.  Pretense is the keyword here – this isn’t quite Times Crossword territory.  Which is a relief, as completing it is straightforward, even if most of your brain is still off partying elsewhere.

If you enjoyed this, there are fifteen other science crosswords to keep you amused ScienceCrossword.com

Levers

Here’s a deceptively engaging bit of fun from VectorPark.  Just build a mobile from the pieces provided.  Each time you get the thing to balance, you get another piece to add – how far can you get?  Like all games from VectorPark, it’s up to you to discover the rules by trial and error.  Or you could just sit and watch your mobile twist and turn on the screen – my recommendation after a heavy Holiday meal!

Monkey Lander

You know the slogan “a minute to learn, a lifetime to master?”  At least half of it applies to Monkey Lander.  The mission is simple – steer Monkey’s ship to collect the fruit (then get Monkey safely to the landing pad).  The science-ish twist? – some of the more obvious laws of physics (and rocket-propelled monkeys) apply.

Science Fiction WordSearch

Another option for people who prefer words to spaceship-flying monkeys.  There are four scifi-themed word searches in all here.  None of them are too taxing – which is quite alright by me.

Spider

Some more fun from VectorPark.  I’m not entirely sure what is supposed to happen here, apart from a six-legged dog/bird hybrid eagerly following a spider around the screen – maybe I just haven’t played with it for long enough.  If you find out, let me know.

Neave Vote

I really struggled to decide what to include in this compendium from Paul Neave – there’s so much great stuff on his website (thanks to @Alessandro on Twitter for the recommendation).  But this tickled me – it’s the perfect antidote for anyone who takes on-line polls too seriously!

Windosill

Back to VectorPark for the next game.  This is another game of discovery – no rules; just a mouse, a screen, and a bizarrely elegant world.  Then it’s up to you.  The first couple of levels are free (if you can work out how to move on from the opening screen), but to play the full game, it’ll cost you $3!

A hint – follow the car.

Gravity Launch

Gravity Launch almost didn’t make it into the mindless game compendium – it teeters on the edge of being too educational.  But despite this obvious flaw, it’s still a lot of fun – and simple too.  Just adjust the rocket’s thrust and takeoff angle, and try to dock with an increasingly complex array of space stations.  Thanks to @science_4_all on Twitter for bringing this one to my attention.

The Eyeballing Game

I thought I’d throw this one in for engineers… and other obsessive-compulsives. How well can you complete each pattern, just by “eyeballing” it?  Harder than you think – especially if you’re a little worse for wear!

Feed the Head

Finally, I thought I would leave the most bizarre game to last – and no surprises that once again it’s from VectorPark.  Feed the Head is a Pythonesque piece of trippy weirdness that will either have you hooked, or doing physical damage to your computer in frustration.  If you think there’s a danger of this, best stick to flying monkeys. This is another game of discovery – follow the mouse, and see where it leads…

_______________________

End Note

Okay, so I have a confession to make.  Despite my aims of embracing the trivial and avoiding learning experiences at all costs, these games have a little more in common with science and technology than might be immediately apparent.  With a couple of exceptions, there’s a discovery and prediction theme going on here that reflects how science tends to work, not to mention some rather cool physically-realistic modeling.  But don’t let that distract you from enjoying the games for what they are – (relatively) mindless fun!

By Jim Thomas, ETC Group

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

For a fresh perspective on how to do technology governance consider starting somewhere else. I suggest York Castle in Northern England – a stark stone tower from the thirteenth century.

It was here in 1812 that the English state first executed fifteen men for the newly established crime of machine-breaking. They were Luddites – the original kind: artisan weavers who saw the factory system as an assault on their livelihoods and communities. At the time England was convulsed by the ‘machine question’ – with fiery debates in parliament and hundreds of fiery attacks on cloth mills by followers of the mythical Ned Ludd. As the first industrial revolution gathered steam, literally, the political class made a deliberate decision to side with the new industrialists. 12,000 Soldiers were deployed to quell the Luddite uprising – more than were abroad fighting Napoleon. The Frame Breaking Act made Luddism punishable by death and in time the word Luddite itself was transformed into a term of contempt and abuse that lasted all the way to 21^st century science debates. Its fair to say the Luddites lost – big time.

I should admit right now that I’m a big fan of the Luddites – Not that its much fun supporting an extinct political movement. Unlike sports teams there’s neither merchandise to buy nor Facebook groups to join (not unless you count this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ye-Luddites/121981285761?v=info ). But I like Ned Ludd and his gang for two reasons.

Firstly I think they were right in ways they didn’t even know at the time. Our contemporary crises of climate change, overproduction and industrial pollution trace back in obvious ways to the industrial revolution as do the emergence of  urban and labour problems that flowed from the factory system and the urbanization that it gave rise to. The new cloth factories made possible a level of demand that justified establishing cotton plantations and a vicious slave trade setting in motion cycles of violence and racism that still persist today. Did the industrial revolution also bring benefits to society – of course it did although those benefits remain very unevenly distributed. Did the Luddites know they were fighting the roots of future racism. No – but their instincts were good.

Secondly I admire the Luddites for their success (albeit brief) in creating  a large-scale truly popular debate about emerging technologies. The widespread uprising of 1811-16 was more than just a wave of hysterics. Popular geek culture casts a ‘Luddite’ as a technologically inept dunce, fearful of change. Historical accounts reveal nothing of the sort. Real Luddites were adept users of complex hand weaving looms. They often espoused nuanced views on the technological revolution happening around them. They were not uniformly anti-technology: Their grievances, as recorded in song and declarations , were specifically with technologies that were “harmful to the common good” – as good a standard as any against which to asses technological appropriateness.  In their night time raids they would break some mechanical frames that they considered unjust while leaving others untouched that they considered benign. They recognised technological power as political, entwined with monopoly power and responsible for a lowering of standards and production of shoddy goods. They even practiced a radical form of democratic  technology assessment that we haven’t seen the like of since: dragging bulky mechanical looms to the market place to hold public trials in which all the community could pass judgement on the new machines – a public consultation process of the most inclusive kind.

I was once involved in organizing such a Luddite-style technology trial – at York Castle no less. A group of fellow activists dragged a motor car to the old stone tower and we set up public court, inviting bystanders to testify for or against the impact of the internal combustion engine on all our lives. Road kill, asthma, community destruction and climate change were weighed against the increased mobility and economic opportunities provided by four fast wheels. Everyone who happened to pass by became the jury.  On balance the car was found guilty of being ‘harmful to the common good’ but received a lighter sentence than the Luddites had on the same spot. This symbolic exercise in popular assessment of technology was exactly 100 years too late to influence the relevant innovation policy. Nonetheless it set me thinking: What if we weren’t too late? What if we could drag emerging technologies into a modern court of public deliberation and democratic oversight. What might that look like?

I’ve been turning over that question for about 15 years now while active in global debates on emerging technologies –  particularly GM Crops, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  Geo-engineering – Debates in which I’ve encountered the term Luddite, meant as a slur, more times than I care to count. Language like this tumbles carelessly out of history .. but I find the parallels striking. Once again we are in the early phases of a new industrial revolution. Once again powerful technologies (Converging Technologies ) are physically remaking and sometimes disintegrating our societies. Those  of us in civil society carrying out bit-part campaigns, issuing press releases and launching legal challenges are in a sense attempting to drag technology governance away from the darkness of narrow expert committees and into the sunny court of public deliberation for a broader hearing.. It seems a perfectly reasonable and democratic urge. But there’s got to be a better and more systematic way to do that?

So far I’ve found three sets of proposals that might begin to put technology oversight into the open and back in the hands of a wider public:

• Public Engagement: Citizens Juries, Knowledge exchanges, People’s Commissions.

No don’t yawn. I grant you that science policy types (and the rest of us) have every reason to groan when they hear the term “Public engagement in Science”. Like other  empty buzz phrases (“sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” come to mind) its too easily appropriated – but there is still (just about) some value in imagining and practicing what actual involvement mechanisms we could craft to enable a more democratic form of innovation governance.  Citizen’s Juries in places as diverse as Andra Pradesh, Mali and Brazil have enabled marginalized groups such as farmers to at least take a place alongside seed companies and biotech giants in policy processes. While People’s Commissions (investigation processes run by citizens groups) may get short shrift from a condescending political establishment yet can often exhibit excellent foresight, drawing on sources of grassroots knowledge  that closetted self-referential science committees might never open up to. These days my faith in public engagement  is waning having watched several governments employ such processes as a thinly disguised public relations ploy or to tie up the energies of civil society. Unless a public engagement process has a clear promise by those in power that they will listen, respond and demonstrably act on reccomendations its likely to lose the interest of the participants too.

• Global Oversight: ICENT.

ICENT stands for the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies – a UN level body for foresighting emerging technology trends and then applying a wide-ranging assessment process that will consider the social, environmental and justice implications of the innovation being scrutinised. It doesn’t exist yet and maybe it never will but at ETC Group we have dedicated a lot of time to imagining what such a body could look like (we even have some nifty organagrams – see pg 36-40 of this) For example there would be bodies scanning the technological horizon and others making a rough reckoning of whether a new technology needed a strong oversight framework or not. Others tasked with bringing in a broad range of knowledge (what do the indigenous folks say?) or identifying exactly the right place in the system of global governance to begin regulatory moves. At a time when tech governance is several decades late each time we find a new platform emerging (Nanotech? Synthetic Biology? Geoengineering?) An ICENT–like body could maybe get international machinery in gear a bit quicker – ideally before industrial interests have already written those technologies into next quarter’s earning sheets and are shipping them to market.

• Popular assessment : Technopedia?

The only governance and regulations that work are those where somebody is paying attention – so  rather than hide technology assessment in rarefied committees why not hand it to the wisdom of the crowds. Wikipedia may not be the most perfectly accurate source of all knowledge but it is comprehensive, up to date and flexible and provides an interesting model. Actually Wikipedia entries are often not a bad place to start if you want to suss out the societal and environmental issues raised by the zeitgeist regarding new technologies. How about a dedicated wiki site for collaborative monitoring and judging of emerging technologies? Such a site could be structured so that, unlike the halls of power, marginal voices have a space and are welcome. A grassroots army of  volunteer technology assessors could help fill out the questions that Brussels or Washington never asks: What is the feminist take on this technology? How does it impact indigenous or disabled groups? What livelihood issues does this raise for the poor? Will the global commodities trade be affected? Perhaps an extended social media approach to technology assessment could convene online juries, host global conference calls and draft peoples reports for input into policy deliberations.

Don’t get me wrong.. approaches like these are not panaceas .. Adopt them all and some of us in civil society  might still feel there are a few metaphorical mechanical frames that would still need breaking. For example I’m not sure a modern day Ned Ludd would be content to spend his whole time writing wiki entries.

Then again, at least he might participate in his own facebook group…

______________________________

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer with the ETC Group based in Montreal, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning.

Formerly an organiser with grassroots direct action movements in Europe and North America, Jim spent seven years with  Greenpeace International as a campaigner on food and genetic  engineering issues before joining ETC Group in 2002. Jim organised the  first international meeting on the societal impacts of Nanotechnology (held in the European Parliament), speaks around the world on  emerging technology issues and has authored several reports, chapters and press  articles on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  GeoEngineering.  He writes a regular ‘Tech Reckoning’ column for The Ecologist Magazine exploring the  politics of next generation technologies.

Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now proccupied with the future of technology. Once upon a time he was an award winning slam poet but then he had children…

ETC Group have a blog too…

By Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Associate Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

Much appreciation is due to Andrew for his courage in soliciting “alternative perspectives” on technology innovation and life in the 21st century.  I can’t help but observe that his nervousness about doing so is one small sign that something is amiss in what he calls “the interface between emerging technologies and society.”

One challenge we face in mending that interface is a tendency toward over-enthusiasm about prospective technologies. Another is the entanglement of technology innovation and commercial dynamics. Neither of these is brand new.

Back in the last century, the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair took “technological innovation” as its theme and “A Century of Progress” as its formal name. Its official motto was “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.”

The slogan shamelessly depicts “science” and “industry” as dictator – or at least drill sergeant – of humanity. It anoints industrial science as a rightful decision-maker about human ends, and an inevitable purveyor of societal uplift.

Today the 1933 World’s Fair slogan seems altogether crass. But have we earned our cringe? We’d like to think that we’re more realistic about science and technology innovations. We want to believe that, in some collective sense, we’re in control of their broad direction. But are we less giddy about the techno-future now than we were back then?  Does technology innovation now serve human needs rather than the imperatives of commerce? Have we devised social and cultural innovations for shaping new technologies – do we have robust democratic mechanisms that encourage citizens and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions about their development, use and regulation?

I’m afraid that the habits of exaggerating the benefits of new technologies and minimizing their unwanted down sides are with us still. And in my view there’s huge room for improvement in our capacity for democratic governance of technology innovation.

Part of the problem is a lag in acknowledging how technology innovation now typically unfolds. Popular perceptions of scientific and technological development still feature white-coated researchers toiling late into the night for the benefit of humanity (or demented Dr. Frankensteins heedlessly pursing their own grand ambitions). To whatever extent these images may have once been realistic, they are now downright misleading. Technology innovation is increasingly dominated by large-scale commercial imperatives. Over the past century, and ever more so since the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (an attempt to spur innovation by allowing publicly funded researchers to profit from their work), innovators have become scientist-entrepreneurs, and universities something akin to corporate incubators.

Commercial dynamics have become particularly influential in the biosciences. It’s hard to imagine any scientist today responding as Jonas Salk did in 1955, when he said with a straight face that “the people” own the polio vaccine. “There is no patent,” he told legendary news broadcaster Edward R. Murrow. “Could you patent the sun?”

Of course, entrepreneurial activity in technology and science often delivers important benefits. It can bring new discoveries and techniques to fruition quickly, and make them available rapidly. Some recent commercial technologies, most notably in digital communication and computing, are stunning indeed.

But how far have we come from the slogan of the 1933 World’s Fair? Technology developers still routinely present their plans either as “inevitable” or as crucial for economic growth. As for the rest of us, we have few opportunities to deliberate – especially as citizens, but also as consumers – about the risks as well as the benefits of technology innovations. Twenty-first century societies and communities too often wind up conforming to new technologies rather than finding ways to shape their goals and direction.

In considering the future of human reproductive, genetic and related technologies (this is the major focus of my organization, the Center for Genetics and Society), the prospect of conforming to the imperatives of science and industry carries a chillingly literal implication. Scattered but persistent voices advocate that we “design” or “engineer” the traits of our children and of future generations. Some enthusiasts acknowledge that this would likely exacerbate social inequality; they recognize the very real possibility of a GATTACA-like future peopled with genetic haves and have-nots. But they remain gung-ho. Others fail to challenge such visions on the shaky libertarian grounds that an individual’s choice to alter the human species should trump commitments to social justice and human rights.

Fortunately, these are minority views.  Inheritable genetic modification is opposed by large majorities in opinion surveys, and has been formally rejected in the laws of nearly 50 countries. Unfortunately, there is no such policy in the U.S. Nor does the U.S. meaningfully regulate assisted reproductive technologies as other industrial democracies do.

What’s needed now is a new kind of biopolitical thinking. Toward that end, here are five principles that I believe should inform deliberation about innovation in human biotechnologies (and other major technologies as well):

• First, let’s acknowledge that the practices and products of science are inherently political [PDF]. They affect us collectively, shaping our communities and the larger world we share. That inescapable fact makes it legitimate—in fact obligatory—to subject powerful new technologies, including human biotech and related emerging technologies, to social negotiation and, when appropriate, to responsible control.

• Second, we need systematic, inclusive, and robust public conversations about the consequences of technology innovations and the values they support or undermine. This is especially challenging for reproductive and genetic technologies because of Americans’ strongly divergent views about beginning-of-life matters. If we can establish habits of thoughtful deliberation about these technologies, we’d have taken a big step forward.

• Third, the known and potential social consequences of technology innovations – not just their safety and efficacy – should be systematically included in our evaluations. We should particularly assess their impacts on socially and economically vulnerable populations.

• Fourth, we should draw on the lessons of previous efforts by socially concerned scientists and their supporters—the “atomic scientists,” environmentalists, public health advocates, and others—to safeguard human health and the environment, bolster responsible science, and build a more just society. We should be skeptical of technological fixes for social problems, and of innovations that serve elite groups rather than the public interest and the common good.

• Fifth, we should acknowledge that market mechanisms are not a substitute for public policy, and affirm the legitimacy and urgency of democratic oversight of major technology innovations, including human biotechnologies. As we would in other arenas, we should avoid regulatory capture, eliminate conflicts of interest, and maximize transparency, accountability, and wide participation in policy making.

The good news is that a new approach to biopolitics is taking shape, one that supports technology innovation when it serves human needs and socially defined goals, and when its broad directions are shaped by democratic governance. A growing network of civil society leaders, public intellectuals, and scientists is taking on the challenge. Contact CGS for more information.

__________________________

Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, is Associate Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society, a Berkeley, California-based public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of reproductive and genetic biotechnologies.

More information:

Center for Genetics and Society www.geneticsandsociety.org

Biopolitical Times www.biopoliticaltimes.org

More about the guidelines for 21^st-century biopolitics:

“Political Science: Progressives can’t—and shouldn’t—remove politics and values from science,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Summer 2009 http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6700

I sat down this morning to write a light-hearted blog about the UK government’s “Science: So what? So everything” campaign.  The angle was going to be:

Why write about this when people want to read about this?

But the more I dug around, the more apparent it became that this is an initiative that seems to have lost its way – and in need of more than a cheap quip about substance (ab)use…

The “Science: So what? So everything” campaign was launched with a flourish by the British government Department for Business Innovation and Skills last January.  It was aimed at engaging people in science, and shaking off the perception of science as being elitist.  A string of celebrities – including Terry Pratchett, Bill Bryson and David Attenborough – put their weight behind the campaign as Prime Minister Gordon Brown kicked it off.

According to the British Science Association,

A key aim of the campaign is to reach and spark interest in science among a wider audience, dispelling the myth that science is too difficult or out of bounds for all but scientists. The involvement of well-known figures from the media and popular culture will help to convey this message. As well the help of celebrities, the campaign has enlisted the support of UK research councils, learned societies and other government departments and hopes to extend its reach with the involvement of business and other organisations outside the world of science.

So what has happened since then?

I ask because British Science Minister Lord Drayson as just embarked on a review of the campaign.  As he announced on Twitter earlier this week:

I’m afraid as a scientist I don’t fit into Lord Drayson’s target audience here.  But his tweet – and some of the responses to it – did drive me back to the Science: So What? campaign to see what was going on.

And I must confess, what I found was a little disappointing.

The “campaign” (more about those inverted commas in a second) revolves around the Science: So what? So everything website.  This is a slick website – it’s attractive, it’s neatly laid out, it draws you in to a series of articles that are related to science.

But it’s a website, not a campaign!

In fact, the more I browsed, the clearer it was that the Science: So what? website is little more than a mediocre popular science portal, with a hint of government science evangelism about it.  I’m not even sure I would have known that this was the hub of a campaign if it hadn’t been for Lord Drayson’s tweet, and archived news coverage of the launch (the original BIS press release isn’t available by the way as far as I can tell – links like the one here lead to dead ends).

If this is a campaign, where’s the action plan?  Where are the deliverables and the indicators of success?  More to the point, where are all those celebrities who were brought in to launch it – and the accompanying publicity machine?

So let’s forget about the “campaign” for a moment, and just look at the website.

The website is certainly visually attractive and functionally smooth.  But does it succeed in reaching out to an audience and engaging people – does it, in the words of mjrobbins, “add value?”

I’m not sure it does.  There are a ton of great science websites and blogs out there – most of them offering far more in the way of reader-oriented content.  If you want information on the latest science news, to be titillated and entertained by science and technology, or to to be enlightened by the view from the lab bench, you are spoilt for choice.  So why would anyone visit – and re-visit – Science: So what?

I’m struggling with this.  It’s not that the content is bad.  It’s just that there’s equally good or better stuff elsewhere.  The articles are limited compared to what you get at New Scientist, the BBC or Discover Magazine (for instance).  There is no community here – a key driver of site visits and loyalty (where are the links, the guest articles, the commentaries, the controversial discussions?).  The “events” page seems rather limited in scope. There’s a DIY Science page with three (three!) articles on it, two of them discussing that old chestnut of putting Menots mints in coke.  And the “get involved” page – judging by the number of comments received – hasn’t inspired many to actually get involved.

I don’t really want to diss Science: So what? – it’s a laudable effort to address a very real issue, and the website is trying to make a dent within a tough web space.  And at the end of the day it is an experiment in using new media to reach out on science.  Tim Jones, who publishes the science and technology blog Zoonomian, wrote “I can also see this is something of a sandbox for experiment, so deserves to be cut some slack” on the Science: So what? metablog.

But he also points out the need for review and decision-making on the website, and highlights a number of areas requiring attention.

Looking at where Science: So what? doesn’t hit the mark for me, and where it might do better, two issues scream out.

The first deals with engaging people.  Despite trying to move away from an old-school science communication framework, it still seems to set out to inform rather than engage.  It smacks of messages that someone thinks people should be reading, rather than content that people want to read.  In other words, despite efforts to move away from this rather outdated stance, it’s “preachy.”

Take the opening paragraph on the “about” page:

In the UK, many of us don’t value science as much as we should, but it lives beneath the surface of everything we touch and taste. It’s the key to our prosperity, one of the driving forces of our economy, and it creates thousands of jobs that keep Britain at the leading edge.

This is about telling readers what’s good for them, not asking them what they think.  Okay so it’s a message that I and many scientists have a lot of sympathy for.  But as a first step to pulling people in? I’m not sure I would be so brave as to use it!  The art of selling is knowing what your customers want, not telling them what they should want – something that seems to be missing here.

Of course, I may be wrong and Science: So what? may be thronging with visitors.

I haven’t seen any web stats for the site so it’s hard to speak with any authority here.  About the only indicator of engagement I do have is a post that links directly back to 2020 Science.  As far as I can tell, I have only had one referral from Science: So what? since that post was published (Tim Jones had a similar experience with the link to his blog).  Contrast this to a link to 2020 Science posted in the comments on P.Z Myer’s blog Pharyngula on November 15 – from which I had 148 referrals in ten days.

This is a dubious comparison in many ways, but it does beg the question why an associate professor at the University of Minnesota seems to be engaging people on science far more effectively that the UK government.

Then, there is the problem of this being a government website.

Think about it.  Where’s the first place you would turn to for broad, unbiased, eclectic, entertaining and educating information on science.  The government?  Not me!  If there’s one thing you can guarantee with a government site is that there will be a constraining agenda behind it – and why would I elect to have my science input filtered by an organization I know is trying to feed me specific information for a predetermined purpose?

This brings me back to where I started – my “Why write about this when people want to read about this?” question.  Engagement is partly about building communities that can have the conversations they want – which is why there’s been considerable chatter on the web today about LilWizz’s piece, but nothing as far as I’m aware on the Science: So what? article.

It’s hard to imagine Science: So what? posting pieces about feeding new-borns opium draughts.  Yet without this freedom to truly engage, it’s even harder to imagine Science: So what? reaching out to the audience it so desperately wants to.

So what’s the answer?  I’m not sure I  have any great answers, but here are four things that BIS might think about:

• Develop a strategic, multi-faceted and transparent campaign to establish science as an integral part of British society, with the web site being just one component of this.
• Make key celebrities, scientists, communicators and organizations central pillars of the campaign.
• Support bloggers, producers, broadcasters and other communicators in developing networks and communities around science and technology – without heavy-handed government interference.
• Further develop efforts to engage people in science and technology – enabling them to be an active part of the process, rather than passive bystanders.

Much more is needed than this if science and technology are to be developed and used effectively within society.  But it’s a start.

When the Science: So what? So everything campaign was launched, Pallab Ghosh wrote on the BBC website

Without a sustained long-term plan, however, there’s a risk that any momentum this latest campaign generates will be lost and go the way of previous attempts to turn the public’s obvious admiration of science into something that’s a part of their daily lives.

Sadly, his crystal ball seemed to be working pretty well that day.  Nevertheless, integrating science into society remains an important issue.  The UK government started well with the Science: So What? campaign.  Maybe it’s now time to get out of the sandpit, and start to build something more concrete.

But don’t take my word for it – check out Science: So what? So everything for yourself.  Talk about it on the Science: So What? metablog.  And don’t forget to get back to the ever-accessible Lord Drayson on Twitter with your thoughts and ideas.

It’s the end of day one at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda, and I’m sitting in my rather comfortable hotel room overlooking Palm Island, trying to pull my thoughts together. It was a day for meeting old friends, making new acquaintances, listening to stirring speeches and exploring new challenges.  As you would expect from a 700 person-strong brainstorm, there were moments of disorientation and confusion.  But even these were stimulating in their own way – rather cleverly, the World Economic Forum has orchestrated a setting where serendipity becomes commonplace.

The real meat of the Summit begins tomorrow, when we start to swap ideas with other Global Agenda Councils (last year I spent an enjoyable hour talking about nanotechnology with the Council on Faith – not what I set out to do, but it’s these chance encounters that bring considerable added value to the Summit).  Today was more of a consolidation exercise – getting to grips with the areas that the Emerging Technologies Council will be focusing on over the next 12 months.

In our discussions, one topic came up that intrigued me – to the point that I made the mistake of suggesting I might follow up on it.  In talking about the role of technology innovation in society, we got onto the question of how technology innovation can enable social innovation.  As I suspect I will be expected to report back on this at some point, I thought I would start feeling out one or two ideas in today’s blog from the Summit.

The role of technology innovation in social innovation undoubtedly has a rich literature (although a quick Google search doesn’t reveal that much) – one which, I must confess, is beyond my reach sitting here at the end of a long, jet-lagged day.  But I do want to get a few thoughts down for further exploration regardless.

Much of the science and technology policy in the developed world is hooked on the idea of the technology fix: Got a problem – technology innovation can solve it.  I must confess, the idea (in a rather more sophisticated form) influences a lot of my thinking.  But this isn’t the only way of viewing the world.  There are those who argue that addressing some challenges will depend on social – not technological – innovation.  Advocating for lower energy use over better energy sources is one example.  Pushing for practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions rather than relying on climate engineering to “fix” global warming is another.

Challenges like energy generation, access to clean water, hunger and poverty are often held up as problems requiring technology-based solutions.  But they are also challenges that can be addressed – in part at least – through social innovation.  In fact, the argument that long-term solutions will depend on social change  in these areas is a pretty compelling one.

But this begs the question – can technology innovation be used to enable social innovation that leads to change?

Looking back over history, the answer seems to be yes.  The agricultural revolution enabled profound social changes, allowing stable communities to develop and freeing people to think about more than simply where the next mouthful of food was coming from.  The scientific revolution of the enlightenment transformed people’s understanding of the world and their place in it, and changed society as a result.  The industrial revolution laid the groundwork for today’s affluent first-world societies.

Of course, it can be argued that these technological innovations merely drove social change, rather than enabling social innovation, although I suspect the line between the two is more than a little blurred. But recent history seems to throw up numerous specific examples of technology innovation enabling social innovation – mobile phones connecting communities and providing access to expertise, low power LED lighting supporting increased literacy in developing economies, and social media building virtual communities that transcend geographical and political boundaries for example.

These and other examples suggest that, even when social innovation is important to addressing key challenges, emerging technologies can have a significant role to play in supporting it – technology innovation becomes an enabler of solutions, rather than a solution in and of itself.

But if this is the case, it makes sense to work out how best to use technology in this way, rather than leaving things to chance.

So these are the question that today’s discussions have lodged in my mind:  How can technology innovation be nurtured to provide tools that enable social innovation?  What are the key areas in which technology innovation has the potential to empower social innovation?  And how is the technology fix best balanced against the technology-enabled fix?

I see I’m going to have a restless night!

Back in July I wrote a short blog about Tim Jones’ Exquisite Corpse of Science project – an innovative project to explore what people think about science and it’s place in their lives and society, through the medium of drawing and film.  Four months on, I though it was worth a quick update.

One of the most striking aspects of Tim’s original work was a nine-minute movie, exploring three people’s perspective on science through drawing (you can see the movie here).  Since its release, the movie has been picked up by two science film festivals – the Imagine Science Film Festival in New York City, and the Serbian Science Film Festival, where it is scheduled to be screened in December.

Pretty impressive – but understandable once you’ve seen the movie.

In the meantime, Tim is building a mosaic of exquisite corpse submissions from anyone motivated to put sharpie to paper. This is well worth exploring – there’s surprising depth to some of the submissions so far.  But there’s also plenty of room for new tiles to be added.

So if you’re passionate about science and have a few minutes spare, don’t procrastinate – put your thoughts on paper, and send the result to Tim (instructions here).  You don’t have to be an artist (as I shamelessly demonstrate here) – just someone with something to say on what science means to you.

Sitting 3000 miles away from London in Washington DC, I’ve been following the dismissal of Professor David Nutt as the UK government’s senior scientific advisor on the misuse of drugs, with interest.  Not being steeped in British drugs politics, I was only vaguely aware of the tensions between the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which Nutt chaired until Friday, and UK policymakers.  So as the story broke, I found it tough to disentangle whether this was a case of a respected scientist demonstrating a blindingly naive understanding of policy, or a government forfeiting science in favor of ideology.  But the more I dig into the situation, the more it seems to highlight a worrying disdain for science and evidence* amongst policy makers.

Nutt’s dismissal will undoubtedly have long-term repercussions on the effectiveness with which UK policies prevent people’s lives being destroyed by drug abuse.  But it also calls into question how science and evidence are used in making policy decisions.  And this is what really worries me – in a science and technology-based society, where information is no longer controlled and constrained by an elite few, playing fast and loose with “evidence” is a politically and socially dangerous game that threatens to marginalize experts and undermine legitimate authority.

David Nutt’s case struck a particular chord with me.  In my day job I work with people who advise on, advocate for and formulate policy.  And I’m constantly surprised at how hard it is to ensure that recommendations and decisions are informed by “evidence,” rather than the evidence being cherry picked and massaged in support of predetermined ideas.  Even in a supposedly science-savvy administration, this is a very real challenge.  For a whole host of reasons, the system is biased towards people who see knowledge as a tradeable and malleable commodity, and who have a startlingly loose attitude toward evidence.  Even well-meaning players in the policy arena sometimes seem to struggle with listening to what the evidence says, rather selectively using it to make a point.

But the grounds for Nutt’s dismissal also struck a more personal chord. Having a son at middle school and a daughter at high school, I have been dismayed at how “evidence” is sometimes misused in the push to prevent children from abusing drugs (both legal and illegal).  My evidence is largely anecdotal, but it seems that in their “drugs education,” there is a tendency for inconvenient facts to be avoided and, on occasion,  information to be “massaged” in the effort to steer the kids toward a safer and healthier lifestyle.

Both of these examples speak to a systemic disdain for evidence – and the science on which it is often built – that results in it being a political tool, rather than a policy foundation.  And this I find truly worrying – whether dealing with drug policy or a number of other issues, we’re in danger of building a foundation-less house of cards that will collapse at the slightest touch if evidence isn’t handled with integrity and respect.

To be very clear here, I am appalled at the horrific damage caused by drug abuse to individuals and society as a whole and, like most people, I see this as a social problem that desperately needs solutions. But I struggle to see how the problem can be solved by ignoring the evidence, and promulgating what can only be described as “un-truths.”  Certainly, policy decisions need to take into account far more than just the current state of knowledge.  But without transparency, honesty, and a foundation of truth, how will people be empowered to make wise and informed decisions?

In an effort to understand whether David Nutt’s dismissal was a product of this culture of evidence-disrespect, or simply down to his political naivety, I actually took the time to read the paper that led to his removal.  It was presented to the Center for Crime and Justice Studies in the UK last week, and can be read in full here.

Given the fuss that it led to, I was expecting an outspoken and ill-considered attack on current drugs policies in the UK.

I couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Nutt’s paper – “Estimating drug harms: a risky business?” – is authoritative, insightful, pertinent, and cognizant of the broader context in which policy decisions are made.  His arguments – and the science and investigations on which they are based – were sound and well-presented.  And I found the conclusions he drew to be reasonable.

It is very clear that Nutt understands the broader social context in which policy decisions are made, and that evidence is just one of a number of factors that need to be addressed.  But he makes it very clear that this evidence should be foundational – and as a consequence, needs to be robust, available, listened to, and not distorted.

I would strongly recommend anyone tempted to weigh into this debate to read Nutt’s paper first, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

Especially Alan Johnson!

Perhaps Nutt’s greatest crime is that he sincerely – and altruistically I believe – tried to speak truth to power.  He attempted to provide decision-makers with a sound scientific and evidence-based foundation on which to base policies that would improve people’s lives.  Contrary to my earlier fears, it is clear that he did this with a full understanding of the the broader framework within which policy is made.  His downfall was that he was working with a government that seems to believe in speaking power to truth rather than truth to power – deciding what is right first, then bolstering this up with evidence!

Sadly, this is a model of government that is not sustainable in this day and age – I’m not sure it ever was.  Without a doubt, policy decisions need to be evidence-informed, not evidence-dictated.  But you still need to start with the evidence.  Corrupt this, and you end up harming the people you are trying (supposedly) to help.

Hopefully the rather unfortunate case of David Nutt’s dismissal will shake people up, and lead to renewed attempts to place evidence – and science – at the heart of policy making.

If it doesn’t, I’m afraid we’re in for some rough times ahead!

___________________________

*It’s common to talk about science-based decision making in policy.  But here I decided it was more appropriate to use the idea of evidence-based decision making – reflecting the language and discussions that tend to occur in policy circles.  “Evidence-based decision-making” encompasses science, but is sufficiently broad to encompass the use of multiple sources of robust, quantfiable and verifiable information.

As scientists, how we love to rail against the incompetence of the media.  As self-proclaimed keepers of the truth, we decry – usually rather vocally – the misinterpretation and misuse of our precious studies.  And as we commiserate together on the injustices of the world, we inevitably get to thinking that if only journalists could see the world as we do and get that down in writing (or on tape), things would be so much better.

Except, it isn’t always the journalists who are to blame for how science is portrayed in the media!

Take this case that landed in my metaphorical in-tray this morning for instance:

Yesterday, Texas A&M University put out a news item with the title “Technology may cool the laptop.” The piece starts:

Does your laptop sometimes get so hot that it can almost be used to fry eggs? New technology may help cool it and give information technology a unique twist, says Jairo Sinova, a Texas A&M University physics professor.

Aided by a short video, Professor Sinova, a co-author on the research being referred to, notes that

Laptops are getting increasingly powerful, but as their sizes are getting smaller they are heating up, so how to deal with excessive heat becomes a headache… “Theoretically, excessive heat may melt the laptop,” he adds. “This also wastes a considerable amount of energy.”

This is an important issue, although I suspect that the vision of melting laptops goes a little far.  But it gets you wondering what this amazing new breakthrough is that is going to prevent those embarrassing laptop melt-downs and inadvertent griddle emulations.  The answer? The Spin Injection Hall Effect, or SIHE – a relatively recently discovered phenomenon that results in electrons with different “spin” in a semiconductor leading to a measurable magnetic field.

The paper that the Texas A&M University news item refers to is “Spin-injection Hall effect in a planar photovoltaic cell” in the journal Nature Physics.  It appears in the September edition of the journal.  It’s an interesting and scientifically sound paper.  It describes work where an experimental semiconductor device is used to show that the Spin Injection Hall Effect can in principle be used to encode information in the spin state of electrons, then “read” that information back.

It is research that could be useful to new ways of transmitting and storing information in the future.

But keeping laptops cool?  Hardly!  And certainly not imminently.

So what’s going on here?  How do we get from some pretty esoteric research on electron spin to preventing “laptop-burn?”

The most generous explanation is that, in one possible future, this science could underpin technologies that lead to lower energy microprocessors, and that this is what the researchers latched on to in an attempt to make their work relevant to a broad audience. But this is an incredibly huge leap.  It’s the scientific equivalent of playing the lottery – speculation in the extreme.  There’s a small chance that the science might lead, through a long chain of events, to microprocessors 12 – 50 years down the line that are faster and more efficient.  But making your MacBook Pro run cooler?  Give me a break!

Another explanation is that Texas A&M wanted to sex the research up – raising their profile at the expense of informed science reporting.

Or maybe someone just got hold of the wrong end of the stick – or the wrong stick entirely.

I’m not sure which of these is closer to the truth.  But what is clear is that this type of misrepresentation of the science at source is not uncommon, and it is highly damaging to understanding of and engagement in science within society.

In this case, the assumptions and speculations behind the laptop claims weren’t clarified, and little attempt was made to distinguish between the science and the fantasies it inspired.  As a result, media outlets that picked up on the story simply propagated the misinformation – including Science Daily.  And as many readers would not have access to the original paper, they would not have the means to test the claims being made.

If research institutions misrepresent the science they are involved in, what hope is there for informed science coverage in the media?  And more importantly, how on earth are people to get an informed sense of emerging science and technology, and engage in a meaningful dialogue on its development and implementation?

I’m all for imagining where different avenues of research might lead.  But fantasizing about future applications as if they are just around the corner is naive at best, and just plain cynical at worst.  And the sad thing is, it ends up further disengaging people from the process of science and technology innovation – robbing them of the ability to participate effectively in a science and technology-driven society.

Effective science coverage in the media is under threat, and there many factors at play here.  But surely this makes it even more important that scientists and research institutions don’t simply add to the problem.  I’m probably being a little unfair picking on Texas A&M here – they aren’t the only ones feeding the media with questionable material.  But it seems that if the science community is serious about good science reporting, it needs to get its own house in order before pointing too many fingers at others.

After all, journalists and others reporting on science and technology are only as good as their sources.  Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how hot or cold the laptop is running!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/30/do-scientists-encourage-misleading-media-coverage/feed/ 32 http://2020science.org/2009/10/15/riding-the-wave-rethinking-science-technology-policy/ http://2020science.org/2009/10/15/riding-the-wave-rethinking-science-technology-policy/#comments Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:35:54 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2328

Part 8 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Much to my embarrassment, I’ve just realized that it was over four months ago that I wrote the previous blog in this series – a series that was supposed to evolve over just a few weeks!  Most inconveniently, other priorities ended up interfering with my well-laid plans and I found myself distracted from completing the series, just three posts before its conclusion.

The good news though is that this gives me an excuse to provide a lightning summary of the story so far, which goes something like this:

• We stand at a nexus of unimaginable technological potential, and unprecedented global challenges.  How we develop and use science and technology over the coming decades will determine the quality (and possibly even the quantity) of life for coming generations.
• Three factors in particular are influencing the challenges we face, and the tools we have at our disposal to meet them.  These are the rate at which knowledge and ideas are propagating and influencing people, the increasingly strong links between human actions and environmental re-actions, and the ability of scientists, technologists and engineers to bend the material world to their every whim; from atoms and molecules to global weather systems.  These are my three “C’s” – communication, coupling and control.
• The coupling between human actions and environmental re-actions is cumulative, non-linear, and rapidly increasing in importance.  Which means that we are now facing global challenges that are more complex and further reaching than any previous generation has had to deal with.
• Rapid changes in how we communicate with each other are rewriting the rules on how society operates, from the global scale to the local level.
• High-impact advanced in science and technology are being driven increasingly by advances in control over materials at the scale of atoms and molecules.  Atom-level control over everything from DNA to advanced materials to smart drugs is poised to vastly extend our technological reach as a species.
• Separately, these three factors confront us with new challenges and new opportunities.  Together, they demand a new way of thinking about science and technology if we’re going to ride the wave of the future, rather than being engulfed by it.

The obvious question at this point – and the subject of this blog – is “how effective are current approaches to developing and using science and technology, and what (if anything) needs to change if we are to adapt and thrive as a species?”  In other words, how as a society can we make decisions that will ensure we have the necessary scientific understanding and technological know-how to overcome emerging challenges and realize the opportunities facing us, without creating more problems than we solve?

And that means we need to talk about science and technology policy.

Effective science and technology policy depends on a robust a framework for decision-making that helps ensure an appropriate level of investment in science and technology, and a good return on that investment.  Every developed country/economy has well-established approaches to science and technology policy—whether formally expressed, or simply in the form of a prevalent set of assumptions or beliefs amongst policy makers.  And these approaches have worked okay in the main over the past fifty years or so.

But are they flexible enough to weather the looming challenges of the 21^st century?

In the United States, approaches to science and technology policy still reflect largely the thinking of Vannevar Bush.  In 1945, Bush presented President Truman with a vision of science in Science, The Endless Frontier that started with basic research, and ended with social and economic growth.  While thinking has evolved since then, many policy makers are still strongly influenced by his ideas.

In crude terms, Bush’s concept was that pure research (directed predominantly by scientists) leads to applied research, which in turn leads to technological innovation.  This in turn stimulates economic growth, which leads to more jobs, more money, and a better quality of life for citizens.

This top-down, linear model has worked well over the years in the U.S. – scientists have been funded reasonably well by the Federal Government, and have been given considerable latitude in what they do.  And in the U.S. at least, this investment seems to have resulted in considerable technology innovation and wealth generation.

But I’m not sure the same approach has got what it takes to address the very different challenges of the 21^st century.

Although current approaches to science and technology policy tend to be more sophisticated than Bush’s model, there is still a tendency to take a top-down linear approach.  Typically under this model, goals for science and technology investment are crafted, funding levels decided, and mechanisms and routes by which those funds will be allocated are identified within government.  It is then assumed that this up-front decision-making will lead to innovation, which will lead to jobs, wealth and, at the end of the day, a better quality of life for citizens.

The degree to which policy makers adhere to or diverge from this (admittedly simplistic) overview depends on where you are in the world.  But this general approach still plays a large role in determining the direction of and funding for science and technology policy in many countries.

Yet this very hierarchical approach to decision-making may not have what it takes to ensure scientific and technological success over the coming years.

First up, it assumes that heavy investment in basic research will naturally lead to technology innovation.  This over-simplistic assumption has been questioned repeatedly over the past decades, perhaps most notably by Donald E. Stokes in his book Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation – it’s an assumption that is likely to be further challenged as the interplay between science, technology and society becomes increasingly complex and dynamic.

Then it assumes that up-front investment in science and technology will naturally lead to an improved quality of life through wealth creation.  Yet the values on which the model is based are beginning to look a little simplistic—dated even—in today’s diverse and interconnected world.

And finally, it supports a top-down approach to science and technology policy that encourages policy lock-in.  This occurs when there are few mechanisms to rethink policy decisions that don’t work—a very precarious position to be in where the policy process potentially lags a long way behind technological progress.

In other words, the widely used linear model of science policy could well fall flat in a world where communication, coupling and control demand responsive and adaptive approaches to guiding and utilizing science and technology.

So what’s the alternative?

A complete rethink of science and technology policy frameworks is way beyond the scope of this blog.  But two issues stand out as being at the top of the rethink-list: the need for a less hierarchical policy framework, and the need for more effective feedback mechanisms.

Starting from the bottom, most people would agree that the end goal of investing in science and technology is improved quality of life.  But what this means and the route to achieving it will vary, depending on a number of factors.  The concept that technology innovation and wealth generation will automatically lead to an improved quality of life is one perspective—but it isn’t the only one.  As social and political boundaries are redrawn through new ways of communicating and technology-driven possibilities advance at an increasing rate, I suspect this perspective will begin to look a little naïve.  An alternative approach is to have multiple goals for the science and technology endeavor—recognizing that wealth, jobs, quality of life etc. are important and intertwined, but not necessarily linearly connected.  In other words, recognizing that quality of life may depend on more than making money!

Similarly, I suspect there will need to be a rethink of the relationship between setting top-level goals for science and technology policy and the means of achieving those goals.  Rather than a top-level steer on science and technology policy, it is going to become increasingly important to flatten the process of crafting policies that determine the direction research and development is pointed in, how much is invested in it, and how the money is spent.

But perhaps most importantly, there will need to be increased feedback between what comes out of science and technology policy, and what goes in.

In any complex and dynamic system, feedback is the key to ensuring stability and adaptability.  The Bush-type hierarchical model of science and technology policy has relatively little in the way of feedback.  But this will need to change if policies are to lead to scientific research and technological innovation that achieve what they set out to.  Rapid advances in communication, coupling and control are pushing us a long way out of equilibrium—without effective feedback loops, the consequences could be catastrophic.

A robust science and technology policy framework will depend on many and varied feedback mechanisms.  But amongst these, the ability to review inputs against outputs, and the participation of people and organizations affected by policy decisions, will be essential.

From this perspective, a revised science and technology policy framework that will help us rise to the challenges of the 21^st century might look something like this:

This is still rather simplistic.  It also reflects to a degree changes in science and technology policy that are already occurring in some countries.  But it does provide some insight into how approaches to science and technology might be crafted that will help us not just cope with life in the 21^st century, but to thrive—to ride the wave of the future rather than being engulfed by it.

I’ll look at some of these approaches to science and technology in the next blog in the series – Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs.

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: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

Next: Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs [Coming soon]

Sunday morning breakfast – a croissant, a coffee, and a stress-free morning.

But wait a minute…

I wonder how healthy all that butter is?  When did I last have my cholesterol levels checked?  Were they high?  Will my crisp, moist butter croissant push me into a French pastry-coronary?

And how about the coffee?  Didn’t I hear that caffeine gives you cancer?  Maybe that was just the Daily Mail on another cancer scare spree.

But there’s no smoke without fire…

Bother – what am I going to do?  I can already feel the panic rising!

Hang it all, I’ll just head out to MacDonald’s for a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddle, with a couple of hash browns on the side.  After all, didn’t someone say it’s healthy to start the day with a good breakfast?

Okay so I’m not really sitting down to croissants and coffee (more’s the pity), and I’m not going to rush off for a MacDonald’s breakfast.  But it is a Sunday morning, and with my brain in weekend mode (i.e. slow, relaxed, prone to roaming, uninformed speculation…), I found myself ruminating over something a friend said in an email a few days ago…

It concerned apparent resistance to having H1N1 flu shots in some quarters – an issue that is still bubbling away in the news.

I’m not going to write about the H1N1 vaccine directly – that would be irresponsible given my limited knowledge and my Sunday morning torpor.  But the issue does raise an interesting question of what happens when we are forced to consciously make decisions we might usually take for granted.

Martye’s email came on the tail of the latest poll from the Associated Press and GfK on people’s intentions to be vaccinated against H1N1.  The poll suggested that people were more wary of the new vaccine than “normal” flu vaccines, even though each year’s batch of flu vaccines is tailor made for that year’s prevalent virus strains – something that Martye had witnessed himself anecdotally.

He wondered how this played into people’s trust of science, scientists and government, and the role of mis-information in the decisions people make.

Because this is a Sunday morning, and there are important Sunday morning things to do (like find those croissants), this is a question that will have to wait until another day.  But it did get me thinking about the degree to which too much information, or a particular focus on an issue, can create a quandary by shifting the decisions we make from the subconscious to the conscious level.

As a species, we’re pretty adept at letting the subconscious parts of our brains do the heavy lifting when it comes to making decisions.  Just imagine how tedious life would be if we needed to analyze the pros and cons of every move or decision we made – much like the coffee and croissant illustration above, we would become paralyzed by indecision.  But we’d also more than likely end up making decisions that were more based on what we were comfortable with, rather than what was good for us.

This raises a real dilemma though, and one I don’t have a good answer to.  A major thrust of what I do is advocating for and enabling informed, evidence-based decision-making.  It’s something I believe in strongly – that in a science and technology-driven society, people should be enabled to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their society based on good evidence and strong scientific principles.

Yet it seems that where the decisions people need to make are far from black and white, forcing them to think about things could end up leading to choices that are more harmful than helpful.

The H1N1 flu vaccine seems to be a case in point.  If it was rolled out as just another annual flu vaccine, many people would have accepted it without question – the decision-making would have been at the subconscious level.

But because the issues of its importance and possible downsides have been raised explicitly, people are being forced to make a conscious decision whether to have it or not.

And kicking up the decision-making process from the subconscious domain to the conscious level has led to confusion and indecision.

So what should we do?  Should complex decisions be left in the hands of “experts?”  Should information – evidence – be withheld from people who don’t have the ability to process and use it?  Should we just accept that others are more informed than we are – and trust them?

At this point, every bone in my body is screaming that transparency, access to information and personal decision-making autonomy are moral obligations in a mature society, and that a hierarchical technocracy is not the way to go. Yet, if this is the case, we need to face the fact that more information isn’t necessarily a good thing on its own.  We need to develop the social tools to use it wisely, empowering individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves and society without leading to undue paralysis and harm.

This is a tough task.  I’m sure there are mountains of scholarly works that address it.  But I’ve yet to see any clear routes forward emerge.

Yet if we are going to cope with new challenges in a world where information spreads like wildfire, it seems more important than ever to work out how to empower people to make responsible and informed decisions on risks and benefits, without becoming paralyzed, or forced into relying on comfortable but possibly unhelpful decision-making shortcuts.

It seems that too much choice could be bad for the health.  But I suspect that not enough choice – and a lack of help, guidance and other tools for making informed decisions – will be worse for the health in the long run.

But that is most definitely a Monday morning problem.

Now, back to that croissant and coffee…

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/11/is-too-much-choice-bad-for-the-health/feed/ 14 http://2020science.org/2009/09/18/enough-with-the-nano-already/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/18/enough-with-the-nano-already/#comments Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:15:00 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2218

Okay, so I’ve been letting work interfere with my blogging life over the past few weeks, which has led to an interminable series of impenetrable blogs on nanotechnology.  I promise I’ll try and lighten up over the next few weeks (although I’m afraid there are still a couple of nano blogs to come over the next week or so).

However, since I have been on a bit of a nanotech roll, I thought I would slip in this additional short blog about a couple of things that metaphorically whacked me over the head on recent travels – before they fade into the mists of my middle aged brain.

Nanotechnology as a brand

The first comes from Graeme Hodge – a law professor at Monash University in Australia.  Or to be more specific, something he said at a recent meeting on nanotech regulation in London.  In amidst the discussions around similarities between US and European approaches to regulating nanotechnologies (thrilling stuff – don’t you wish you were there?), Graeme made what I thought was a profound observation: Nanotechnology is a brand.

Now of course nanotechnology is associated with all sorts of very concrete advances in working with matter at a nanometer-scale, and is backed up with some rather cool science.  But it’s always been hard to pin down exactly what it is, and why people get so excited about it.  And it’s been even harder to work out what the implications of this new technology are, and how to handle them.

However thinking of nanotech as a brand rather than a technology per se might help resolve many of the problems we’ve been grappling with in making sense of the technology.  Brands are usually based on something tangible, but also incorporate loyalties, perceptions, emotions etc. that add value to them in ways that are compelling while not quite tangible.

This sounds very much like nanotechnology – a grand idea that has stimulated new research funding, motivated renewed interest in science and technology and led to innovations that go beyond the sum of their contributing parts.  Sure there’s some really interesting stuff going on at the nanoscale.  But the real value here seems to reside the power of the idea – the brand of nanotechnology.

On the flip side, if nanotechnology is as much a brand as a technology, talking about possible health and environmental impacts can get a little complex. The intangible values that branding brings to a product cannot be assessed in toxicology studies, or measured in the environment.  Perhaps this is why discussions of nanotechnology safety have floundered so often.

Maybe reframing nanotechnology as a brand will help unravel some of the knots we’ve got ourselves into over the technology, and enable faster progress on developing responsible products based on nanoscale engineering.  I’m looking forward to hearing more on the idea from Graeme in the future.

Stimulating stakeholder dialogue through drama

I had the good fortune to spend this last week at the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) annual meeting.  Always a stimulating conference, I was particularly struck by a reading of a short play.

Anyone with a passing interest in drama will know that actors and plays can enable a powerful and very public airing of thoughts and ideas that people often find hard to share.  I’ve rarely seen this used to great effect in bringing stakeholders together in grappling with complex science and technology-based issues.  But this particular reading left me wondering whether there is an important role for drama in multi-stakeholder forums addressing the development and implications of nanotechnology.

The reading in question was given by two actors from the Science Museum of Minnesota, and involved a sometimes heated discussion between two sisters on the possible pros and cons of nanotechnology.  Both were passionate about the technology and aware of the current state of the science. But while one was working for a company to ensure the safety of new  products, the other was worried about the use of the technology in the absence of hard safety data.  The result was a compelling and complex dialogue between the siblings that effectively articulated fears and hopes that many stakeholders have, but few are brave enough to share in public.

While watching the reading, it struck me that this merging of science, technology and art is powerful in two ways.  First, it enables strong and valid but opposing opinions to be explored by proxy – stakeholders watching the drama would be likely to end up with a sense what others thought and felt, without the emotional baggage of those (sometimes impassioned) opinions coming directly from colleague sitting across the room from them.  Secondly, it acts as a bridge between people coming from very different perspectives – providing a shared experience and understanding that could form the basis of a fruitful dialogue.

Could drama be used in this way at multi-stakeholder nanotech meetings?  I don’t know, but I am dying to try it out.  It might just break us out of the repetitive circles many of these meetings end up go round in.  Just so you are forewarned therefore – expect to see the odd nanotechnology meeting organized by me with a rather unconventional agenda in the future…

Nano for kids

And finally, I was reminded while traveling back to the airport in San Francisco after the NISE Net meeting that Dragonfly TV has a great series on nanotechnology – accompanied by a really good web resource.  If you’ve got kids or teach kids, this is an excellent source of stuff on nanotechnology – from video clips from the programs to a huge selection of nanotech resources.  And if you’re not a kid?  I highly recommend you close the door, turn down the sound and browse the sight while no-one’s looking.  But be warned – it’s addictive!

Addendum:  After playing around some more with the Dragonfly TV website, I just had to add this link.  Regulators, NGO’s industry folk and others out there – want a mature perspective on nano-labeling?  Check out these comments… from kids!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/09/18/enough-with-the-nano-already/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2009/09/03/hooked-on-science/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/03/hooked-on-science/#comments Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:33:59 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2146

How exactly did I get hooked on science?  It’s not something I’ve thought about too much before. But an invitation to discuss how to inspire the next generation of scientists, technologists and engineers next week has got me thinking…

Next Monday (Sept 7) I’m taking part in a discussion on science role models, as part of the British Science Festival – hosted by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).  It’s shaping up to be a fascinating event, and certainly not one to miss (you can sign up for it here) – not least because it is happening in the virtual world of Second Life (a first for me).  The discussion will be delving into what inspires people to get into science, technology, engineering and mathematics – and how those of us already hooked can help to inspire others.

I don’t want to give too much away before Monday – although I can reveal that the great Dr. Karen James of Twitter, Mashable and The Beagle Project fame will be a co-panelist, and that the event will be the place to be between 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM London time on Monday.

However, to limber myself up for the big event (while providing something of a teaser), I thought I would delve into my own past and revisit some of the inspirations that led to me becoming a scientist.

So without further do (apart to apologize for cultural references that may not make sense to all readers), here are ten inspirations from my youth that got me hooked on science:

1.  My father. I know it’s a bit of a cliché – for which I apologize – but looking back, my father undoubtedly played a major role in sparking my interest in science.  He was a technician for most of his working life – starting off in TV’s, moving on to nuclear power with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and later on working as a lab tech in a sports science department.  He was fascinated by science and technology and what it can be used for (still is), and his spirit of inquiry, questioning and investigation rubbed off – big time.  He also taught me the value of a good technician – without which most scientists would be marginally less productive than a two legged horse.

2.  A defunct radio. When I was around four, someone kindly provided my preschool with a large old fashioned radio – with large Bakelite knobs, impressive dials, and valves (or “tubes” as Americans quaintly refer to them).  It didn’t work, but I was absolutely convinced that I could fix it; and spent hours fiddling around in its innards with a screwdriver.  I failed (nothing to do with my age I’m sure – the previous donors had given us a real dud!), but the experience was the beginning of a long love affair with anything electrical.

3.  My first home chemistry kit. I can’t remember what was in that first kit or even who made it.  What I do remember is being able to replenish it from the local chemist – something that you can’t do these days sadly – and  “augmenting” it with exotic new additions. Irresistible

4.  DIY Science books. Where would I be without local libraries?  Not where I am now I suspect!  I used to devour books on science experiments for the home.  The experiments often didn’t work, I must confess (good training for later days).  But armed with an arsenal of basic household supplies, a good tome from the local library, and my augmented chemistry kit, I was in kid-heaven.

5.  Jacques Cousteau. I still remember the feeling of anticipation – sitting in front of the TV in my pajamas, way after my proper bed time, waiting for the latest nautical adventure from Cousteau and his crew.  Looking back, it was the sense of discovery that had me glued to the set on these rare occasions – I wanted to be informed and inspired, not entertained.

6.  “Teach Yourself Atomic Physics.” I owe so much to this little book (possibly by James Moncur Valentine – I can’t be sure) – which must have gone out of print decades ago.  It was my father’s, but I purloined it and poured over it for hours on end, trying to understand the mysteries of the universe.  I even started to tell people I was going to be a nuclear physicist when I grew up (I was rather young at the time).  I only achieved half of my childhood dream (the physicist bit) – but that was in part because of this book.

7.  Judith Hann. Actually, I would include many of the old Tomorrow’s World team – Raymond Baxter, Michael Rodd, Bob Symes and a number of others. The program had its critics, and in later years tried too hard to grab fleeting attentions – becoming rather shallow.  But as a child growing up, Judith and the others were an inspiration.

8.  Doctor Who. Okay so this one took me by surprise as well – was I really inspired by an individualistic fictitious character with an authority complex?  Looking back, I think I was.  I have a sneaking suspicion – never articulated until the confessional of this blog, that I wanted to be just like John Pertwee or Tom Baker – using science and superior intellect to save the world while cocking a snoot at the establishment.  Come to think about it, I suspect I still do…

9.  Isaac Asimov. There are a number of science-realistic fiction writers I could insert here: Arthur C. Clarke, Brian Aldiss, H. G. Wells – I read them all.  And while many (not all) of them fell short of writing good “literature,” they nevertheless set my mind ablaze with new ideas and new possibilities.  If this was what science was about – I wanted in!

10.  Mr. Tranquada. Mr. Tranquada (I think I have the name right – it was a long time ago) was a high school physics teacher I had for one year only. I had two other physics teachers at high school who were less than inspirational – although the pot-smoking hippie brought an interesting flavor to the subject, until he got busted!  But the year I had Mr Tranquada was a revelation.  He wasn’t flash.  He didn’t strain to entertain.  And he could be a real sarky so and so.  But when he taught, it was as if he opened a window into a universe of full of new ideas – and the more I experienced, the more I wanted.  He also taught me that there’s no such thing as a stupid question – one of the more important lessons of my youth.

These weren’t my only inspirations that led to me becoming a scientist – but they are amongst the more prominent ones.  Interestingly, there weren’t too many traditional role models there (unless you count Doctor Who of course…)  The people who attracted me were those who expanded my knowledge and understanding – it was what they offered that hooked me, not who they were.  I wonder whether this is just a personal predilection, or whether it hints at something more universal.

Finally, as I compiled this list, I was intrigued by the things that didn’t get me hooked on science as a youth.  Here are just three:

1. My careers advisor. Mr. Barlow was his name.  I asked him once what it took to become a research scientist.  His answer: “You don’t want to do that!”

2.  Dead people. I’m sorry to admit it, but dead scientists just didn’t do it for me.  Things are a little different now. But then, given Newton or an apple, I’d go for the apple.

3. Carl Sagan. Okay, so I may be the only scientist of my generation to admit to not being inspired by the great Carl.  Not having a TV when Cosmos was shown in the UK may have something to do with this   But it just goes to show that you don’t always need a superstar to get someone hooked on science.

Well, that’s the introspective retrospective over.  If you have your own thoughts and ideas on how to hook people on science, join us on Monday -  in the flesh if you are at the British Science Festival, or via Second Life if you are not – details here.

See you there.

Initial reflections on the new Royal Society report “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty”

After many months’ hard work, the Royal Society’s much-anticipated report on geoengineering was published today.  Aimed at presenting “an independent scientific review of the range of methods proposed [for geoengineering the climate] with the aim of providing an objective view on whether geoengineering could, and should, play a role in addressing climate change, and under what conditions,”  it provides what is perhaps the most authoritative and comprehensive assessment of the options to date…

I suspect that, like most climate change-related reports these days, “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty” will have ideologues on both sides of the aisle up in arms.  It dares to consider the option of actively engineering the climate on a planetary scale to curb the impacts of global warming, and advocates further research into geoengineering.  In doing so, it will no doubt simultaneously enrage deniers of anthropogenic climate change, and those who fervently maintain that technological fixes are not the solution to the consequences of humanity’s excesses.

Yet for anyone mature enough to consider the merits of evidence-based and socially-responsive decision-making, the report offers a clear and insightful perspective.

From the outset, the report presents geoengineering as a far from ideal but perhaps necessary option to curbing global warming.  In the foreword, Lord Rees – President of the Royal Society – stresses that “nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”  Even more strongly, the top headline message of the report states

“The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.  No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change.”

Yet, as the report’s authors point out, neither can we afford to be complacent in assuming that global emissions of greenhouse gases will be curbed sufficiently to avoid widespread economic, social and political impacts over the coming decades.  In the event that active interventions are needed, the report’s subtext is clear: we will need to face the scientific, social and political challenges up-front, openly and honestly if we are to have a hope of making smart decisions.

By taking a balanced and systematic approach, the report establishes a strong technical and social framework for assessing geoengineering options.  On a scientific and technical level, two classes of geoengineering approaches are identified: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques.  Each class is addressed separately in the report.  Within these two classes, nine plausible geoengineering “solutions” are explored and assessed: biochar, enhanced weathering, carbon dioxide air capture, ocean fertilization, surface albedo alterations (urban and desert), cloud albedo modification, stratospheric aerosols and space reflectors.  These are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety.

The report summarizes the assessment of each solution in a useful graphical representation (shown below), which also includes three additional technologies not discussed extensively in the text (afforestation, carbon capture and storage at source – CCS – and bioenergy with carbon storage, or BECS).

Preliminary overall evaluation of geoengineering techniques, from the Royal Society report Geoengineering the Climate, Sept 1 2009

While the numbers assigned to effectiveness, affordability, safety and timeliness are somewhat qualitative (hence the error bars – which merely denote large uncertainties), this representation gives a sense of which geoengineering approaches might be the more promising ones.  In crude terms, the ideal method would be represented by a large green circle to the upper right of the chart.  Under these criteria, using stratospheric aerosols to scatter sunlight away from the earth comes closest to the ideal.

Interestingly, the recently-publicized approach of painting roofs white (and other urban surface albedo raising ideas) doesn’t fare too well in this assessment. Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low  against all four criteria.  However, while this visualization may be useful for getting a feel for the pros and cons of different geoengineering options, the report cautions that diagrams like this are “no more than preliminary and approximate and should be treated as no more than a preliminary and somewhat illustrative attempt at visualising the results of the sort of multi-criterion evaluation that is needed” to make sense of complex and uncertain geoengineering options.

Beyond the technical options for geoengineering, a substantial portion of the report is dedicated to addressing societal issues.  Chapter 4 establishes a discussion framework that includes governance of geoengineering in the light of risk and uncertainty, ethical issues, oversight of research and development, public and civil society engagement, and economic factors.  These issues are approached with seriousness and respect, and exert a strong influence over the report’s subsequent recommendations.  It is telling that the report’s authors acknowledge that

“The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues.”

The report winds up with seventeen recommendations, ranging from the development and deployment of specific geoengineering solutions, to global governance and public engagement.  These should be read and digested in their entirety by anyone interested in geoengineering, in the context of the full report, and so I’m not going to regurgitate them here wholesale.  But I did want to highlight a few of the recommendations that I suspect will strike a particular chord with proponents and opponents of geoengineering, and anyone in the business of making tough decisions on the best way forward.  They also give a good feel for the tone and emphasis of the report:

1.1 Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change and, in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter.  Nothing now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts. [emphasis added]

1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence time and impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.

3.1 Geoengineering methods are not a substitute for climate change mitigation, and should only be considered as part of a wider package of options for addressing climate change.  CDR methods should be regarded as preferable to SRM methods as a way to augment continuing mitigation action in the long term.  However, SRM methods may provide a potentially useful short-term backup to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperatures are needed.

5. The Royal Society, in collaboration with other appropriate bodies, should initiate a process of dialogue and engagement to explore public and civil society attitudes, concerns and uncertainties about geoengineering as a response to climate change.  This should be designed so as to a) Clarify the impact that discussions of the possible implementation of geoengineering may have on general attitudes to climate change, adaption and mitigation; b) Capture information on the importance of various factors affecting public attitudes, including: novelty/familiarity, scale of application and effect, aesthetics, the actors involved, centralization of control, contained versus dispersed methods and impacts, and the reversibility of effects; c) Provide participants with objective information as to the potential role of geoengineering within the broader context of climate change policies, the difference between CDR and SRM, and their relative risks and benefits.

6.1 The governance challenges posed by geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and policy processes established to resolve them.

7.1 The Royal Society in collaboration with international scientific partners should develop a code of practice for geoengineering research and provide recommendations to the international scientific community for a voluntary research governance framework.  This should provide guidance and transparency for geoengineering research and apply to researchers working in the public, private and commercial sectors.  It should include a) consideration of what types and scales of research require regulation including validation and monitoring; b) the establishment of a de minimis standard for regulation of research’ c) guidance on the evaluation of methods including relevance criteria, and life cycle and carbon/climate accounting.

On a first reading, this is a balanced, sober and authoritative report on the development and deployment of geoengineering options to address climate change.  It clearly lays out the technical approaches available, and provides a robust expert perspective on their relative merits.  But its strength lies in the broader social, ethical and political framework within which it positions these options.

The result is a report that neither promotes or denigrates geoengineering, but takes a long hard look at how to ensure the safest and most effective use of geoengineering, should it become necessary.

It’s too early to say whether this will be a truly seminal report in the history of managing global climate change – although my money is on it having a significant and lasting impact.  But it is certainly a considered and mature report. And it clearly establishes the need to take geoengineering – and all of its social, ethical and political ramifications – seriously.

The question is, are we mature enough to act on it?

Inevitably, time and consequences will tell…

Download the full report: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty [PDF, 4756 kb]

Related blogs:

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics?

Geoengineering goes mainstream

Steve Chu’s White Revolution

Geoengineering: Are we grown up enough to handle it?

Geoengineering options: Balancing effectiveness and safety

Update 9/3/09 – the figure above has been updated to reflect a typograpical correction made to the original (the top right effectiveness/affordability tag was incorrect).  Thanks to everyone who pointed the error out – and to the RS for fixing it so fast!

I‘ve just posted a series of five attention-grabbing talks on future technologies from TED (the Technology, Entertainment, Design conferences) over at Mashable, where I contribute the occasional guest blog.  If you are more interested in the transformative power of technology than the latest gizmo from Apple, you might want to check them out.  Speakers include Patti Maes, Christopher deCharms, Aubrey de Grey, Juan Enriquez and, of course, Ray Kurzweil.

One video I got a kick out of but that didn’t quite make the cut is this talk from Joshua Klein.  Watching it, you’ll probably understand why: there’s little mention of future tech… until the very end!

Enjoy

Reviewing Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

My name is Andrew, and I am scientifically illiterate.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

And before you protest too much, I do have some pretty convincing evidence.  Math makes my head ache.   I cannot recite the Earth’s geological timeline from memory.  And there’s a one in ten chance that I’ll stumble over pronouncing terms like artemisinin and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

The problem lies of course with what is understood by “scientific illiteracy” rather than my abilities—at least I hope that’s the case.

The idea that modern society only works if it is based on a common understanding, appreciation and use of science has been around for a while.  It seems to make sense – in a society that is increasingly dependent on science, widespread scientific ignorance is likely to lead to non-democratic leadership by a scientific elite, or ill-informed (but democratic) decisions that are ultimately destructive.

The solution would seem to be to replace scientific ignorance with scientific literacy.  Get everyone thinking and acting like scientists, and the world will surely be a better place.

Unfortunately, this perspective turns out to be rather naïve.  Dividing the world into scientific illiterates and literates devalues the many other skill sets and perspectives that contribute to healthy decision-making within society.  It also encourages an over-simplistic approach to the challenges of critical thinking and evidence-based decision making—namely that educating people more about science will result in them making the “right” decisions.  And it has a tendency to lead to scientific literacy being measured in ways that have little bearing on a person’s ability to make informed decisions…

Over the past decade or so, scholars and policy makers have come to realize that more sophisticated approaches are needed if science-informed, yet democratic, decisions are to be made by people.  As a result, rather than talk about scientific literacy, discussions now tend to revolve around the ideas of dialogue and engagement – empowering people in a complex society to make personal and group decisions that are ultimately constructive.

So it was with some trepidation that I sat down to review Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s new book “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”

Fortunately, it didn’t take much reading to convince me that their perspective is rather more sophisticated than the book’s title suggests. Unscientific America is a laudable attempt to tackle science’s place in American society in an easily accessible way.  Highly readable, largely enjoyable, occasionally infuriating, the book takes on the challenge of how to empower members of society to make the best use of science.

There was a lot that I liked about the book – and a lot that resonated with my own views.  But there were also points where I felt the book fell short of what it could be.

Despite the book’s rather sensationalist subtitle, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of placing scientific illiteracy in a modern context.  Chapter 2 on “rethinking the problem of scientific illiteracy” provides an accessible overview of current thinking – and does it reasonably well.  The notion of a “public” that will make the “right” decisions if only they are sufficiently well educated – the so-called deficit model – is introduced, examined, then carefully put aside.  The problem, Mooney and Kirshenbaum point out, is that the deficit model can all too easily be used to exempt scientists from the responsibility of ensuring their work is an integral part of the society they belong to:

“It’s an educational problem, they say, or a problem with the media (which doesn’t cover science accurately or pay it enough attention), and then they go back to their labs.”

But rather than discard the term “scientific illiteracy,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum prefer to redefine it, in their words “getting past issues of finger-pointing and buck-passing and the misconception that our problems can be reduced to what non-scientists say in response to survey questions.”

Their solution: emphasize an aspect of scientific literacy that stresses citizens’ awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy, and a collective future.

This makes a lot of sense, and is in many ways the lynchpin of the book.  But I do have my reservations over their adherence to the idea of scientific literacy.

When scholars began to realize that the deficit model wasn’t particularly helpful to integrating science and society (for a multitude of reasons), they began to move away from talking about “science literacy” and towards talking about developing dialogues and engaging people in making science-informed decisions.  These approaches complement broader discussions on the roles of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making; integrating science into a more holistic perspective of modern society.

Having established the central focus of the book, Mooney and Kirshenbaum present their ideas in a series of connected essays.  From a distance, the structure makes sense.  Chapters 1 and 2 set out the challenge as seen by the authors.  Chapters 3 and 4 continue on to fill in the historical background – how American culture’s apparently strained relationship with science got to where it is now.  Chapters 5 – 8 then deal with specific issues that highlight the current state of play—science in the media, science and popular entertainment, science and religion, and science and politics.  Finally, chapters 9 and 10 begin to explore possible solutions to the “problem” of scientific illiteracy – culminating in a short conclusion that attempts to pull everything together.

Some of these chapters are a good and informative read.  I was enjoying myself immensely up to chapter 8.  But then I felt that the book began to run out of steam.  Repeatedly, I found myself intrigued by questions set up by Chris and Sheril, then disappointed by a lack of resolution.  In an attempt to try and keep things simple I suspect they ended glossing over a lot of things (see my comments below on the book’s endnotes). But in the latter chapters I was increasingly aware of a lack of depth behind the points being made.

A good example is “Bruising their religion”—the chapter on science, religion and the “new atheists.”  This particular chapter has ruffled plenty of feathers throughout the blogosphere already, and I don’t intend to ruffle more by adding my two cents worth to Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s perspective.  But I do want to highlight the intellectual letdown that I felt when reading the chapter – something that I experienced with increasing frequency as I progressed toward the end of the book.

In this chapter, Mooney and Kirshenbaum roundly criticize vocal and intellectually aggressive proponents of atheism—a crowd that will stop at little it seems to denigrate religious beliefs and humiliate those who adhere to them.  They argue that the crude combative and even ignorant tactics employed by people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins do more to undermine scientific literacy than they do to support it.

This makes sense—intellectual bullying doesn’t often have pride of place in communications manuals!

Mooney and Kirshenbaum then state that the divide between science and religion is a false one, and the two are not mutually exclusive.  But they give no concrete evidence for this, beyond citing a handful of scientists who held (or hold) religious views.

The result is a reader who is left high and dry.  I wanted to know how science and religion may be reconciled, and why the preaching of the new atheists is intellectually as well as socially suspect.  But what I got was little more than opinion and unsubstantiated statements.

The following chapters in the book suffer from a similar glossing over of arguments—although perhaps not to the same extent as this chapter.  And as a result, I was left feeling frustrated at the lack of substance in what I was reading.

Unscientific America culminates in a six-page conclusion titled “A new mission for American Science.”  Reaching this point, I was full of expectations—this was where the meat would be (I thought), where I would finally learn how science illiteracy threatens our future, and what the answers are.

In the event, I found it a bit of a let down.  While I had enjoyed the book – which is only 132 pages long if you discount the extensive endnotes – I felt that I hadn’t been convinced that scientific illiteracy does indeed threaten America’s future.  And as for the solution to this apparently looming problem, everything seemed to lead up to Mooney and Kirshenbaum proposing that the responsibility for integrating science into society lies with scientists. After all the buildup, this seemed a little too easy.

To be fair, it’s an important conclusion.  If science is to be integrated into society, scientists as a group need to be a part of that society rather than apart from it.  It’s something that we are still a long way from achieving, but I would argue it is essential if future decisions are to help rather than hinder social development.

And to be honest, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of bringing this need to a broad audience.

But I can’t help feeling that Unscientific America falls short of what it could have been.  Mooney and Kirshenbaum clearly have a political and ideological bias that ends up being woven through the book, and at the end of the day this weakens its authority for me.  The Bush administration’s “war on science” for instance is cited repeatedly as hindering science literacy over the past 8 years, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum stress the need to move on from “an administration widely denounced for a disdain of science unprecedented in modern American history.”  Indeed, Chris Mooney has written about this in his previous book—The Republican War On Science.

Yet framing a book on science in such a strong political light is likely to alienate some readers, and will lead to diminished authority over time.

On top of this, I feel that Mooney and Kirshenbaum never quite succeeded in making a watertight case for why scientific illiteracy threatens our future—leading to the central premise of the book coming across as ideological rather than a persuasively argued and clearly defined challenge.

And that brings me back to the issue of scientific illiteracy.  From where I sit, it seems to be a phrase fraught with problems—it reinforces an “us” and “them” mentality, it has the potential to create arbitrary and often meaningless divisions.  And, to be frank, it gets some people’s backs up.  Joking aside, I could well be labeled “scientifically illiterate” under some measures of literacy.  Yet I think I have been somewhat successful in my career as a scientist, policy advisor and communicator.   So I struggle with a book so overtly focused on scientific illiteracy.  Mooney and Kirshenbaum have done a good job of framing scientific illiteracy in a sophisticated and accessible way.  But in the long run, I wonder whether the book would have had greater authority and a longer shelf life if it had made the break from dated concepts, and fully embraced the need for dialogue and engagement when integrating science into society.

So to wrap up – should you read this book?  Absolutely.  But read it forewarned.  Understand where the authors are coming from.  Accept that in 132 pages of writing for a general audience you won’t be taken on a deep and intellectually challenging journey.  And don’t hesitate to chapter-hop – I particularly liked chapter 2!

And above all, enjoy it – whether you agree with Mooney and Kirshenbaum or not, they are entertaining and talented writers, and Unscientific America is an enjoyable—and not too taxing—read.

Endnotes

About the endnotes in Unscientific America

Although Unscientific America only stretches to 132 pages it is complemented by 66 pages of endnotes, comprising citations and additional comments.  I’m not a great fan of this format—especially as the endnotes aren’t cited on the pages they relate to.  But it is an extensive resource for those who are interested in delving further into the points Chris and Sheril make.

I do have a problem though where there is extensive commentary included in the endnotes.  While reading the book, you have no idea whether a particular idea or comment is fleshed out later on, unless you keep one finger in the endnotes. This is not a comfortable way to read a book!  I understand why the book is published this way – it keeps things simple for readers (I almost wrote “scientifically illiterate readers” – slapped wrists for that!).  But it isn’t half a pain for anyone seriously interested in what the authors are trying to say.

It’s far better, in my opinion, to ensure that the relevant stuff is incorporated into the main text, not sequestered away where no-one will read it.

More on science and society

Many people have studied the complex interplay between science and society, and reams of work—from the scholarly to the popular—has been written on the subject.  To get a good feel for current thinking, I would recommend “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda” by Martin Bauer, Nick Allum and Steve Miller [PDF, 116 KB].  Also check out Matthew Nisbet’s blog, Framing Science, and the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.

And a final comment…

Since it was released several weeks ago, Unscientific America has been the subject of a number of reviews.  Although I’ve caught some of the chatter surrounding these, I have made a conscious effort not to read them before writing my own rather belated piece.  So hopefully these thoughts are mine, and not simply a regurgitation of other people’s ideas.

Now to see whether what I’ve written is completely out of step with the rest of the blogging world…

Art makes a mockery of experts and empowers the marginalized. At least that’s how I feel at the moment!

Having broadcast the news of Tim Jones’ fabulous Exquisite Corpse of Science project, I thought it only fitting that I do what I’ve been telling everyone else to do, and get out my Sharpie.  And here’s the result:

My entry for the Exquisite Corpse of Science project - don't laugh!

(For the uninitiated, the idea is to get as many people as possible to draw what they think is important about science and submit these to Tim – who will then stitch them together into one large mosaic).

This has been a lesson in humility for me – I may know a thing or two about science, but I’m hopeless when it comes to expressing this through drawings.

Yet it’s precisely because of my artistic deficiencies that I thought it worthwhile posting my rather crude contribution here – if this is the best I can come up with, think what someone with a good eye and uninhibited imagination could do!

Just to prove the point, this is what my twelve year old son came up with:

My son's entry for the Exquisite Corpse of Science project - vsibly superior!

Tim’s Exquisite Corpse of Science concept is intriguing precisely because it humbles people who think they know stuff while empowering those who know they don’t – and in doing so it reduces many of the barriers to effective science engagement.

It’s also a lot of fun – once you’ve chilled out a bit and realized that there’s no such thing as a bad drawing here!

So now you know how low the bar is, grab your pen and pad and get drawing (details on what to do here).  The more people who contribute, the better the end result will be!

End Notes.

Something I did try here was to record an audio commentary while drawing the pictures – I got my son to do the same.  This is a lot more work than simply doing the drawing (although Tim is accepting accompanying audio files) – but the end result did help make sense of some otherwise rather obscure doodlings.

These are the results.  Alex’s first…

Then mine…

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/18/anything-i-can-do-you-can-do-better/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/07/15/biggest-science-art-project/ http://2020science.org/2009/07/15/biggest-science-art-project/#comments Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:27:32 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1948

Okay, so there may be a dash of hyperbole there, but following up on the success of his Exquisite Corpse of Science project (see my previous post), Tim Jones is hatching an ambitious plan to create the world’s largest interconnected montage of drawings representing peoples’ impressions of, aspirations for and concerns about science.

The plan is really simple – and it involves you!

Simply send a sketch of what science means to you to Tim at corpse@communicatescience.com, and he will do the rest.

There are some simple rules:

1.  Draw – in your own style and without getting hung up on technical or artistic ability – what you think is important about science

2.  Anyone can participate – young, old, scientists, science drop-outs, stay at home mums (or dads), janitors, Nobel prize winners, even economists – everyone is welcome.

3.  The picture should be connected to points roughly one and two thirds of the way along the edge of the page (each side and top to bottom) – allowing your doodlings to be connected to every one else’s.  If this sounds confusing, take a look at the example below.

4.  The picture should be square.  It can either be drawn free hand and scanned, or drawn directly on the computer.  Either way, it should be 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels large when finished.

5.  The final compressed file is smaller than 500 KB.

6.  You should sign your art work

7.  And if you want – feel free to add an audio commentary.

More details can be found on Tim’s blog – which I would encourage you to read – together with some really good explanations on what on earth all this is about!  I’d especially recommend watching the video at the end of the page.

Any questions – pop over to Tim Jones’ blog Zoonomian and post it in the comments section here.

And while I (and Tim) are probably being a little tongue in cheek about this being the biggest science-art project in history, with enough submissions it could be.  So be a part of history, and get drawing!!

[Update 7/22/07 - check out my entry here, then feel inspired to grab a pen and produce something better - it won't be hard ]

Tim Jones has just posted a video of a new science engagement technique he’s working on over at his blog Zoonomian.  I was so impressed with the result that I asked his permission to post it here also.

Before explaining what this is, take a look at the video – it’s ten minutes long, but well worth watching in its entirety:

The Exquisite Corpse of Science from Tim Jones on Vimeo…

Tim and colleagues adapted the Exquisite Corpse techniques developed by the Surrealist movement to mesh together drawings of what four very different people thought about science and its impact and relevance.  He describes the process here.

I love the result.  It has an openness and honesty that draws you in, and provides far more insight into what each of the contributors are thinking than interviews alone would.  And the end result is visually stunning.

It also engages  viewers as well as participants in thinking about science from their perspective, as they see it visualized through the eyes of others.

It just goes to show that, sometimes, effective science and engagement just needs a Sharpie [felt tip pen to any Brits reading this], a drawing pad, and a bit of imagination!

[If, as me, you liked this - spread the word.  It would be great to see what others do with the technique]

When I was a kid, I was told by my physics teacher that there’s no such thing as a stupid question.  Clearly, he hadn’t been to enough scientific meetings!

Actually, it’s a philosophy I’ve adhered to pretty closely over the past thirty years.  If someone wants to expand their knowledge or understanding, the fewer barriers that are put in their way the better.  Honest questions should never be seen as an opportunity to ridicule or belittle the questioner, or parade the ego of the questioned.  If anything, I would prefer to look foolish in helping someone increase their understanding, and I have little time for people who use the apparent foolishness of others to emphasize their own smartness.

But…

It’s a philosophy that wears a little thin at scientific meetings.

Having been to more meetings than I’ve had hot dinners, I’ve had plenty of opportunities to watch the antics of people in the question and answer sessions that invariably follow presentations.  To be sure, plenty of people have honest questions at these gatherings.  But we’ve probably all experienced the person who hijacks the microphone (for the hundredth time it seems) and launches into a 10 minute tirade which – if you can understand it – seems to have little bearing on the issues in hand, while preventing others from entering the conversation.

So I thought it about time that we had some sort of code of conduct for questioners at meetings – before I or someone else snaps and does something we will probably live to regret.

If I was to draft out such a code – and I’m only doing this because a Google search on “code of conduct for asking questions at scientific meetings” comes up with zero results – it would look something like this:

1. Do say who you are and where you are from. You may be a big shot, but there will still be some ignoramuses in the audience who don’t recognize you.
2. Do keep the question short and to the point. Remember, every minute you are talking is a minute less for someone else to talk.
3. Do provide additional information if it is relevant to the talk, and to the audience. But do keep it short – anything over 60 seconds and you become a bore!
4. Do ask clarifying questions. But only if you genuinely want to hear the answer.
5. Do ask relevant questions. Questions about the mating habits of lesser-spotted dogfish are great – just a little out of place at an astronomy meeting!
6. Do give others the chance to ask questions. Especially if time is tight.
7. Do think about whether your question is better asked in private than in public. If 90% of the audience do not need to hear the answer, maybe you shouldn’t be at the mike.
8. Don’t use the microphone as a soap-box. It’s tedious, embarrassing, and demeaning.
9. Don’t give a lecture.  It’s the height of bad manners, and a really fast way to loose friends and influence.
10. Don’t ramble. If you can’t say what you want in 60 seconds, don’t say it.
11. Don’t hijack the microphone. If time’s running out and there’s a long line of people waiting behind you—get out of the way!
12. Don’t be arrogant. Okay so you may be smarter than the speaker, but this is neither the time nor place to show off.
13. Don’t ridicule the speaker. There may be rare exceptions to this rule, but attempts at public humiliation are just really, really bad form – and usually backfire.
14. And finally, don’t hesitate to ask tough questions. Because at scientific meetings at least, this is an essential part of testing and building on people’s research.

I must confess, I’m guilty of all of the “don’t” above (apart from the last one maybe), and often struggle with the “do’s.”  But the more meetings I attend and the lower my tolerance gets for inappropriate and inept questions from the audience, the more I feel it’s worth making the effort to improve things – starting with myself.

I still believe there is no such thing as a stupid question.  But there are some pretty dumb ways of asking them.  I remain a staunch advocate for responding to sincere questions with humility and honesty – especially in private.

But at public meetings, the smarter we get at asking questions, the better!

Following up on my last post – Geoengineering the planet with nanotechnology ice-cream? – here’s a short video Zoe Papadopoulou and colleagues put together on The Cloud Project from my visit in June:

Although this was filmed before the finishing touches had been applied to the ice cream van, it give a flavor for how the project is bring artists, scientists and members of the public together to talk about emerging technologies like nanotech and geoengineering.

Many thanks to Zoe for permission to post the clip here.

Photo courtesy Zoe Papadopoulou

Scientists and engineers have their moments. But it they are hard pressed to beat art students when it comes to sheer audacious creativity.

Earlier this year I received an email so intriguing I couldn’t help but follow up on it. The email was from Zoe Papadopoulou, an MA student at the Royal College of Art in London.  It was a request for help with a rather unusual design project she and fellow student Cat Kramer were hatching. Skimming through the message, phrases like “geoengineering,” “ice cream van,” “nanotechnology,” “clouds that taste of ice-cream” peaked my interest.

But then I saw the words “liquid nitrogen,” and I was hooked!

The concept was deceptively simple – use art and design to engage people on nanotechnology and geoengineering in a simple, enjoyable and appealing way. The realization was a little more complex…

The whole idea was sparked off by Professor Richard Jones – author of the Soft Machines blog and former Senior Strategic Advisor for nanotechnology for the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). In a talk to students on the Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions course, he introduced them to the emerging field of nanotechnology. Intrigued by the possibilities and potential hurdles here – and especially the need for public engagement – Zoe and Cat set out to use design, art and science to, in their words,

“frame a debate, and create interactions between people and their possible futures.”

The result?  An ambitious plan to retro-fit a 1980 Sherpa ice cream van to create ice-cream flavored clouds, while acting as a focus for stimulating discussions on nanotechnology and geoengineering.

The idea went something like this:

Making ice-cream using liquid nitrogen is a fun and accessible introduction to nanotechnology – the rapid freezing leads to the ice-cream having a nanoscale structure and a super-smooth texture.  Nanometer scale particles also play a role in cloud formation, and in principle it’s possible to induce clouds to come together by injecting engineered nanoparticles into the atmosphere.  So why not combine the two to get ice-cream flavored clouds?  Why not inject a stream of liquid nitrogen and ice-cream mix into the atmosphere as a fine spray, leading to flavored condensation nuclei that will seed ice-cream clouds? And why not build it all into an old ice-cream van – a mobile fun-flavored cloud machine?

As you might imagine, the gap between technology concept and realization was rather large in this case.  It’ll be a while before you’ll see (taste?) strawberry-clouds over the English countryside – although the van is fully equipped to demonstrate how the cloud machine could work.

But this wasn’t the point of the exercise.  What Zoe and Cat were trying to achieve was using art and design to draw people into conversations about emerging technologies.

And in this they succeeded brilliantly.

My role in all of this – apart from making the odd encouraging noise – was to help out at a trial-run of the van back in June.

Part of the concept here was to use the van as a platform for experts to engage with real people on nanotechnology and geoengineering.  I’m told the idea was to get experts and members of the public talking to each other in an accessible, fun, non-threatening environment.  Fun and non-threatening for the public maybe – I’m not so sure the experts felt that way about it! But then maybe this was part of the process of breaking down barriers between people that know about emerging technologies like nanotech, and those that want to know more.

Actually, I had a blast with the van. Talking about the project, nanotechnology and geoengineering with Zoe’s friends and neighbors, I was fascinated by how easily the conversations flowed amidst demonstrations of the van’s cloud generators and roof-mounted industrial-strength water spray. With the van as a backdrop (and it really is an impressive piece of design-work), people started discussing emerging technologies – and what they might mean for them personally – without having to be forced into it.

Engagement is something that is talked about a lot in science and technology circles, but rarely done well.  Yet here were a couple of arts students effortlessly* bridging the gap between emerging technologies and members of the public, using their imagination, design skills and a bit of fun.

For the past week the van has been on display outside the Royal College of Art and has been attracting plenty of attention by all accounts.  Over the coming year it’s scheduled to make a number of appearances around the country – exactly where and when (and with whom) will be posted on the Cloud Project website (where you can also find out more about the project).

If you get the chance, I’d encourage you to visit it.  It’s a lot of fun.  But it also demonstrates the importance of using art and design together with other skills in bridging the gap between new technologies coming over the horizon, and people who they are potentially going to affect.

And geoengineering the planet with nanotech ice-cream?  I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.  But it’s certainly something to think about as you munch on your ’99 this summer.**

End Notes

For more information on the Cloud Project, check out the project website.

Read more about the Royal College of Art Design Interactions course here.

*Actually, as Zoe and Cat will tell you, this project was far from effortless when it came to refurbishing the Sherpa van.  This took a tremendous amount of effort over the past several months – but the results are impressive!

**For non-Brits, the ’99 is the peak of British gourmet ice-cream – a whirl of soft-whip with a length of flaky chocolate stuck in it.  Delicious

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/05/geoengineering-the-plane-with-nanotechnology-icecream/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/06/27/celebrity-scientists-%e2%80%93-it-takes-more-than-stardust/ http://2020science.org/2009/06/27/celebrity-scientists-%e2%80%93-it-takes-more-than-stardust/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:38:29 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1834

It’s been a few weeks now since the men’s style magazine GQ launched the “Rock Stars of Science” campaign.  I’m a staunch advocate of raising science’s profile, but the whole campaign has had me on edge, and I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on why.  Was it the exclusive use of white middle-aged male scientists?  Was it the implied message that the science-guys were rock-star wannabes?  Or was it the assumption that medical science is the only science worth promoting?

Sheryl Crow, Anthony S. Fauci M.D. and Harold Varmus, M. D. (I'll leave you to work out which is which.) From the Rock Stars of Science Campaign

Then it struck me – what really got under my skin was the cultural cargo cult mentality being flaunted.

Cultural cargo cult?  It’s not a new metaphor, but not a commonly used one either.  If it had a Wikipedia entry, it might read something like this:

A cultural cargo cult is a practice that may appear in societies in the wake of interactions with separate, socially advanced cultures. The cults are focused on obtaining the popularity of the advanced culture through association and behavior-emulation, believing that the fame and fortune achieved by others should be theirs, because they are more worthy.

Following contact with people from more socially advanced societies through random encounters, the media and, more recently, Twitter, cultural cargo cults have been observed around the world.  They are particularly prevalent in the developed economies of the West.

Members, leaders, and advocates of cultural cargo cults maintain that the social kudos (“cargo”) of the advanced culture has been created by trivial means, such as through celebrity promotion.  They believe this kudos is rightfully theirs but that, unfairly, the celebs of the other culture have gained control of this social status through attracting  “cool” to themselves by malice or mistake.

Cultural cargo cults thus focus on efforts to overcome what they perceive as the undue influence of celebrities in attracting cool, by conducting rituals imitating behavior they have observed among the holders of the desired kudos and presuming that their fellow citizens will, at last, recognize their worth and send the “cargo” to them instead.

A characteristic feature of cultural cargo cults is the belief that punters will, at some future time, give much valuable kudos and desirable “cool” to the cult members, rather than worthless celebrities who should never, in their eyes, have got it in the first place!

(My apologies to the authors of the Wikipedia entry on cargo cults, which this has more than a passing resemblance to.)

I hate to be too critical of the Rock Stars of Science campaign.  The medical research it aims to support is laudable.  And truth be told, I’d have been there like a shot if the call came in to do a photo shoot with Sheryl Crow!  But in the context of science communication and awareness-building, this is a classic example of cultural cargo cult-ism.  In their haste to be seen with the cool gang, the scientists have forgotten to ask what makes its members cool in the first place!

This probably would have been fine if the only message emerging was that naïve scientists simply like to have fun.  Unfortunately, I don’t think this was the case.

As @mjrobbins writes on The Lay Scientist,

“Let’s just look at the statistics here. GQ assembled 11 scientists, and 5 rock stars. Of the rock stars, two are black, one is a woman. Of the scientists, 11 are middle-aged white males. For a campaign that wants to attract new young people into science in a country where around half of young people are women and probably nearly half are from ethnic minorities, that’s just moronic.

But, okay, you’ve got your middle-aged white guys in suits into the studio and you’re ready to take some photos that promote science. It doesn’t take a marketing genius to tell you that the scientists should be in the centre, and the rock stars should be fawning over them.”

Given the reach of GQ and the rock stars that participated in the photo shoot, the messaging here will have an impact.  And sadly, that message seems to be that successful scientists are white middle-aged males (with a dubious dress sense) who, when all’s said and done, wish they’d become celebrity musicians instead.

@drisis concludes her blog on the Rock Stars of Science campaign with:

“This campaign sends the message that scientists aspire towards other things.  Not that other people aspire to be scientists.  It seems to me that if you want to have an effective campaign then what you do is put Sheryl Crow in a lab coat and take pictures of those guys teaching her to pipet or culture some cells or use a microscope.  Don’t take pictures of talented, gifted scientists — scientists whose talents make them as unique and talented as the rockstars they are pictured with — trying to be musicians.  Take a picture of a musician aspiring to be a scientist.”

Getting people turned on to science is incredibly important.  And nurturing science-savvy cultural icons will certainly help achieve this.  Indeed, there are already plenty of icons-in-the-making around, if only they could be given a bit of a leg up.

But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that dressing like and fraternizing with celebrities will lead to some of the stardust rubbing off.

Postscript

In the Twitter chatter around the Rock Stars of Science campaign earlier today, a number of people pointed out that Queen guitarist Brian May is quite literally a Rock Star of Science – having reveived his Ph.D. from Imperial College in London in 2007.  And his thesis?  “Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud.”  Clearly a rock star of science who genuinely knows his stardust

Update 6/28/09 – Also check out Chris Mooney’s thoughts on the Rock S.O.S campaign, which provide a good contrast to mine.  And if you want a closer gander at the pictures from the photoshoot that launched the campaign, here’s the 4-page portfolio from GQ Magazine [PDF, 580 KB]

Back in April I posted data on three indicators of “influence” for ~400 science-focused Twitter users – based on David Bradley’s list of “Scientific Twitter Friends.” Intrigued to see how these Tweeps’ influence evolves over time, I will be updating these data periodically.

In this first update (aided and abetted by @ruthseeley – thanks Ruth!), the overall number of followers (both primary and secondary) of the SciTweep cohort has increased over the past two months – as would be expected given increasing interest in Twitter.  There is the slightest hint of an increase in overall Social Capital. But this is marginal, suggesting that SciTweeps are not deviating substantially from Twitter-wide trends in increasing followers.

These data are available on Many Eyes to play around with (see the screencast below for tips on how to mess around with the bubble chart).  You can even download the original data here and dive deeper into it…

The dataset is reasonably large and no doubt holds a multitude of insights for those dedicated to mining it (although with only two date points, it is still lacking in depth).  But rather than go into deep analysis here, I thought I would restrain myself and simply focus on the distribution of the three indicators amongst the group, and changes over the past two months. (Details on the three indicators of “influence” are covered in the April SciTweet blog).

In looking at these figures, please bear in mind that the group of ~400 Tweeps is one of convenience – it does not represent all current science Tweeps, and indeed overlooks some key figures in the Twitter community.  But for the purpose of following a group of science-focused Twitter users over time, it serves its purpose well.

Number of SciTweeps (vertical) versus number of followers (horizontal). Watch out for the logarithmic x-axis!

Looking at SciTweep followers, there has been a shift in the modal number of followers from 133 in April to 422 in June – although these figures are approximate given the step-size used.  Clearly though, there’s been an increase in the number of people following most of our SciTweets.

Number of SciTweeps (vertical) versus number of secondary followers (horizontal). Watch out for the logarithmic x-axis!

There has been an overall increase in secondary followers over the past two months, although not sufficient to lead to a definite increase in modal value in the plot above.

Number of SciTweeps (vertical) versus social capital (horizontal). Watch the logarithmic x-axis!

The social capital distribution has barely shifted over the past two months.  As this is based on the ratio of a SciTweep’s secondary to primary followers, it provides a measure of how the SciTweeps are faring compared to the rest of Twitterdom.  A significant shift to the left or right would suggest the cohort of science Tweets loosing or gaining influence compared to other Tweeps.  Given the similarity between the two distributions above though, it seems that the SciTweeps are holding their own, but not showing appreciably different changes in influence compared to other tweeps.

Finally, I thought it worth posting a quick screencast of how to navigate round the bubble charts on Many Eyes.  Enjoy:

Update 6/23/09:  Bubble Charts updated with correct data for @maverickny (formerly – and erroneously – listed as @maverick_NY)

Notes:

The data shown here are derived using Twinfluence.

Where the number of second order followers topped out on Twinfluence, it was capped at 30,000,000

My thanks to David Bradley for compiling the list of “Scientific Twitter Friends” in the first place.  This is largely a self-selected list of science-types on Twitter, and in no way represents the full scientific community there.  But it does provide a highly useful cohort of people who profess to have a science-perspective, and can be tracked over time.  This series of analyses uses the list as it stood mid-April.

A quick word on the plots:  These are a rather crude way of presenting the data, but provide a good qualitative indication of distributions and trends.  The number of science Tweeps represented by each step in the plots represents the Tweeps with primary followers, secondart followers or social capital lying within the range of the step.  As the horizontal axis uses a logarithmic scale, the range of values covered by the steps increases dramatically going from left to right.  As the data are roughly logarithmically distributed, this makes visualizing, comparing and analyzing the numbers easier.  But care should be taken when interpreting the plots, given the logarithmically compressed horizontal axis.  In particular, modal values are dependent in part on the use of a log-axis, and would be different if the data were plotted with a linear horizontal axis.

And finally, many thanks to @ruthseeley for help in running SciTweeps through Twinfluence – a finger-numbing task!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/06/23/science-influence-on-twitter-june-update/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2009/06/09/science-ministers-question-time/ http://2020science.org/2009/06/09/science-ministers-question-time/#comments Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:25:47 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1715

This afternoon, a riveting and possibly ground-breaking conversation evolved in real time on the social media platform Twitter.  Yesterday, writer and broadcaster Colin Stuart (@skyponderer on Twitter) raised concerns about the new dual-role of UK Science Minister Lord Drayson – Drayson has just been made Minister of Defense Procurement as part of Gordon Brown’s reshuffle, on top of his duties as Minister of Science.  His comment was picked up by PD Smith, an author and reviewer for the Guardian newspaper, and re-tweeted.  Things might have ended there.  But Lord Drayson himself jumped into the conversation earlier today.  And so began a fascinating exchange between Drayson – a regular presence on Twitter – and a number of other Twitter users.

Lord Drayson - UK Minister of Science, Minister of Defense Procurement, and founder of Drayton Racing. Image: Daily Mail

Both Sophia Collins at “I am a scientist. Get me out of here” and PD Smith have blogged on the exchange – read Smith for a concise account of the discussion, and Collins for a more complete rundown of the tweets. .. Looking through the succession of 140 character (or less) messages, this was clearly not a deep debate, nor one that led to marked changes in perspective.  But where it scored significantly was in the level of accessibility, transparency and engagement demonstrated by Lord Drayson.

Quoting PD Smith:

I have to admit I was surprised. Actually that’s a serious understatement. I sat in front of the screen for a few minutes wondering if I was seeing things. Don’t Her Majesty’s ministers of state have more urgent matters to attend to than dealing with comments on Twitter by authors? Perhaps it was a practical joke? A fake Lord perhaps?

Here was a senior minister engaging fully with members of the public on science policy.  And doing so without (as far as I could tell) being patronizing, unapproachable or stand off-ish.

The result was a clear demonstration of how emerging platforms like Twitter can help increase the level of engagement between decision-makers and the people impacted by their actions.

Of course, there are plenty of kinks still to be ironed out with how Twitter is best used to connect people in important ways.  Will we simply see increasingly sophisticated spin promoted under the banners of “engagement” and “transparency?”  How will PR folks manage the new accessibility?  Is engaging on Twitter less than inclusive?  Can you really have engagement in 140 character bites?  And what happens when everyone and their dog (or cat) realizes that important people are merely a tweet away?

But despite these questions, today’s conversation demonstrated that Twitter can provide a powerful platform for bringing publics and decision-makers together.  And I suspect that it goes further than this; whether we are talking engaging in policy or engaging in science, the platform enables interactions that it’s hard to imagine happening otherwise.

In this sense, Twitter is becoming the global equivalent of the local pub – where social hierarchies are less important than what you say, and how you say it.

Irrespective of the issues discussed, my sense is that Lord Drayson acquitted himself well today by being willing to converse with folk on Twitter.  And while no serious issues may have been put to bed, at least they had an airing and people were given a voice. What remains to be seen is whether others learn to use this and similar forums in a similar way and engage with others – whether on politics, science, or any other area that directly affects people.

I guess time and tweets will tell.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/06/09/science-ministers-question-time/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2009/05/26/quarks/ http://2020science.org/2009/05/26/quarks/#comments Tue, 26 May 2009 18:09:17 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1642

Science bloggers sometimes have a tough time being heard through the incessant chatter and endless distractions endemic to the web. Which is a shame, as there is a wealth of top-knotch writing out there to be digested and enjoyed, if only more people knew about it.  The good news is that a new award from the folks at 3 Quarks Daily could help raise awareness of some of the best writing out there.

On Monday, 3 Quarks Daily announced The Quarks – four annual prizes for blog posts in the areas of science, arts & literature, politics, and philosophy.  The prizes will be awarded four times a year on the two solstices and equinoxes, starting with the science prize on June 21, and ending with the philosophy prize on March 10.

This is where you come in.  Nominations for the science blog prize opened May 24th, and close June 1st. If you want to support quality science blogging, simply post the link to a blog you want to nominate in the comments here.  But make sure you do so before June 1st…

The rules are simple:  Anything written between May 24 2008 and now is eligible for nomination.

Between June 1st and June 8th, you will have the chance to vote for your favorite nominations.

Then on June 21st, Stephen Pinker will select the winning entry from six finalists.

This is a great way to raise the profile of science blogging.  But it does depend on people nominating blogs and – more importantly – voting.  So please don’t be shy, and add your suggestions to the list of nominations.

If you are unsure where to begin, check out the science blogs listed to the right of this page.  Science writer Carl Zimmer has even simplified your task by listing some of his favorite posts on his blog The Loom.

And if, by some whim, you feel like nominating something from 2020 Science but want some inspiration, here are seven of my favorite posts from the last year:

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics?

Darwin, evolution, and the genesis of intelligent design

Science, society and the Second Enlightenment

Blogging the demise of science journalism

Cultural smokescreens

The long shout

Whatever you do though, make sure you nominate a science blog post from someone – and then vote!

Thanks

50 years on, have we missed the point of C.P. Snow’s “Two-cultures?”

50 years ago, long before Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme,” the British scientist, public figure and novelist Charles Percy Snow planted an idea into the collective consciousness that has since grown to have a profound influence on science and the arts in Western society. Sadly, it wasn’t the idea he necessarily wanted to plant. So while the relevance of Snow’s “two cultures”—representing the divide between the scientific and literary elite of the day—has been debated and deconstructed ad infinitum over the intervening decades, Snow’s real passion—tackling material poverty through science and technology—has largely been ignored…

In 1963, Snow wrote a follow-on piece to the 1959 lecture.  In “Two cultures: A second look” C.P. Snow addressed the concerns of his many critics.  But he also took the opportunity to clarify and expand on what he was trying to convey four years earlier.  Freed from the constraints of crafting a short and somewhat simple public lecture, he wrote compellingly on science’s place in society, and the absolute necessity of using it for the social good—something he only saw the cultural divides around him obstructing.

In the opening sections of the 1963 essay Snow addresses his critics directly, which he does with humility and wit.  But by section five he begins to get to the heart of his true passion for science and technology:

“We cannot know as much as we should about the social conditions all over the world.  But we can know, we do know, two most important things.  First we can meet the harsh facts of the flesh, on the level where all of us are, or should be, one.  We know that the vast majority, perhaps two-thirds, of our fellow men are living in the immediate presence of illness and premature death; their expectation of life is half of ours, most are under-nourished, many are near to starving, many starve.  Each of these lives is afflicted by suffering, different from that which is intrinsic in the individual condition.  But this suffering is unnecessary and can be lifted.  This is the second important thing which we know—or, if we don’t know it, there is no excuse or absolution for us.”

Snow acknowledged that there is more to the human condition than mere material needs.  But he argued that this does not release us from the obligation to address those needs—his “hard facts of the flesh”—nor the fact that science and technology provide the means to do this.  He pushes this point home:

“We cannot avoid the realization that applied science has made it possible to remove unnecessary suffering from a billion individual human lives—to remove suffering of a kind, which, in our own privileged society, we have largely forgotten, suffering so elementary that it is not genteel to mention it.”

This gets to the very heart of the essay, and the intended thrust of the 1959 lecture.  So much so that he admits “Before I wrote the [1959] lecture I thought of calling it “The Rich and the Poor”, and I rather wish that I hadn’t changed my mind.”

From here, Snow begins to tackle the myth of the “ennobling” nature of suffering—the idea that suffering strengthens a person, and to interfere in the “natural order” of “master and man” is to do those who suffer a disservice.  Snow is ruthless in his attack on those supporting this position—many of them, in his eyes, amongst the comfortably off cultural elite “who have climbed one step up and are hanging on by their fingernails.”

Just as ruthlessly, he exposes the romantic myth of life being better before science and technology shook things up. Quoting J.H. Plumb he writes:

“No one in his sense would choose to have been born in a previous age unless he could be certain that he would have been born into a prosperous family, that he would have enjoyed extremely good health, and that he could have accepted stoically the death of the majority of his children.”

Rather, he writes

“It seems to me better that people should live rather than die: that they shouldn’t be hungry: that they shouldn’t have to watch their children die.”

From Snow’s perspective, attempts to justify the status quo and look back at “better times” were misguided and divisive, often reflecting the attitudes of the wealthy who could afford to romanticize suffering.  Rather, the solution he saw to satisfying society’s material needs was—and had to be in his eyes—science.  Without the scientific revolution, the only alternative was a divided society where a suffering majority supported an affluent minority—a concept Snow clearly found abhorrent.

And as a consequence, anything which impeded the successful development and implementation of science in society needed to be addressed head-on.

In 1959, Snow saw the chasm between the scientific and intellectual elite as one such impediment.  It was a problem unique (from his perspective) to the British establishment, and arose from an education system that inhibited understanding between these worlds and, as a consequence, weakened the ability of science to be used for the social good. This was the thinking behind the public lecture he delivered on May 7 1959 in Cambridge England.

Fifty years on, a lot has changed.  Approaches to education are different.  There is extensive and productive cross-talk between the science and the arts.  And national and global cultures have evolved.  Yet the central problem Snow faced remains: we live in a world divided into the rich and the poor; where the majority of people don’t have access to necessary material needs—food, water, shelter, medical treatment; where science and technology are increasingly able to bridge this divide, if only they were used effectively.  The unfortunate irony is that, by using the two cultures as a light to illuminate the problems facing society, Snow ended up creating a smokescreen that has, if anything, helped to obscure them.

The reality is that Snow’s 1959 lecture and 1963 essay are even more relevant now than they were 50 years ago—not because of the culture issues they address, but because in a society that is increasingly dependent on science and technology, we still haven’t got a good grasp on how to use them to make life better for the poor as well as the rich.

Sadly, the two cultures meme is a powerful one—witness the editorials, publications and events surrounding this 50th anniversary of the 1959 lecture.  But perhaps now’s time to put it aside and start talking about what’s really important, not just what we think is important.  Because if you look forward through the next 50 years, we have some pretty large global challenges rolling our way that aren’t going to be solved by talking about cultural differences alone.

Last week I asked a rather trivial (did someone say trite?) question (the 2-second Two-Cultures poll) about perpetual motion machines – as a gentle lead-up to this week’s 50th anniversary of CP Snow’s Two Cultures lecture.  So what were the results and what can be learned, if  anything, from them?

First, here are the data in all their glory:

Next, the lessons learned:

1.  Don’t trust a physicist to carry out a meaningful poll! OK so I have to admit it, from a scientific perspective the poll was meaningless – the people who took it didn’t represent a cross-section of society (I assume), the questions and their framing revealed more about my biases than other people’s opinions, and the ability to see other people’s votes before casting your own threw any validity the poll might have had right out of the window!

2.  If you genuinely want to know someone’s opinion, don’t intimidate them! This was completely unintentional, but I got the distinct impression that many people saw this as a test rather than a poll and were fearful of getting the answer wrong.   Another humiliating blow to my already-battered credentials as a social scientist.  Scientifically there was a correct answer, but I was more interested in what people thought than what they knew.  With this in mind, there are probably 101 ways in which the poll could have been framed better.

3.  Don’t try and be clever with a one-question poll. As any self-respecting pollster will tell you, asking a single question tells you more about the person setting the poll that the people answering it.  To make any sense of these data, information would be needed on all sorts of other stuff.  Its abscence is another nail in the coffin of this as a serious exploration of people’s perspectives.  But…  if you want to have a bit of no-too-meaningful fun, one-question-polls are great!

Having got some of the negatives out of the way, there are some interesting things to come out of this exercise – flawed as it is:

4.  The 360 people who took the poll were a pretty knowledgeable crowd. The “scientifically correct” answer (and I just know I will get flak for that phrase) was that perpetual motion machines defy the laws of physics – or the second law of thermodynamics to be precise.  They are an impossibility.  And most people taking the poll realized this.  Of course, this probably means that folks reading 2020 science have an above average grasp of physics (give yourselves a pat on the back).  But I was impressed, nevertheless!

5.  There were a fair number of people who took the poll who could be classed as science-engaged. These were the folks who didn’t hit the scientifically correct answer, but were nevertheless interested enough in the question to have a stab at an answer.  This is a crowd that really interests me – people who don’t necessarily have all the answers (and probably realize it), but are are willing to engage. Probably because on 99.99% of all subjects, this is where I sit.  Folks – you are my true peer group!

6.  A small number of people weren’t interested in the science, but interestingly were engaged enough indicate their lack of interest. This is where the poll really fell apart – if you weren’t interested in science in general or perpetual motion machines in particular, why on earth would you bother taking the poll in the first place!  The really interesting question here is whether the people who just “don’t care” really were a minority, or whether they simply weren’t engaged in this poll.  I suspect the latter, but I would love to test this in a better thought-out study.

7.  Public understanding of science probably exceeds public knowledge of science. This actually isn’t supported by the data here, but the poll does suggest it is a reasonable hypothesis for further testing (it probably has been already.  What do I know – I’m just a physicist!).  Let me explain:  The original idea behind the poll was C.P. Snow’s question about the second law of thermodynamics, and whether people could describe it.  My guess is that most people – including a fair chunk of the scientific community – couldn’t provide a good description of the law if asked out of the blue.  That’s because the questions tests knowledge rather than understanding.  Part of the thinking behind this poll was to see how people responded to a question that revealed how much they understood about a physical phenomenon, rather than how much they could recite.  Of course it fails because of all the problems highlighted above.  Nevertheless, it does suggest – however tentatively – that people might understand more about how the world works than questions probing their level of knowledge might suggest.

This is extremely important when it comes to science communication, education and engagement.  Scientists love to despair at how little “the public” knows.  But I suspect that this knowledge-based perspective suggests cultural divides that are less apparent from an understanding perspective.  And if divides – cultural or otherwise – are to be bridged, it helps to first understand where the real divides are before developing appropriate approaches to crossing them.

8.  The “Two Cultures” is a myth – at least within the readers of 2020 science. Actually, this would be a nonsensical thing to conclude, were it not for the 2020 science readers qualifier!  The data from this poll show a single science-aware culture with a long-tail extending into “don’t care” attitudes.  There is no indication of a strong counter-culture – which is a pity because I would really enjoy having a more diverse readership.  But the poll did not test a representative cross section of the community, and so has no relevance to the universe outside this website.

At the end of the day, this was – as I noted earlier -  just a teaser to get people engaged leading up to the 50th anniversary of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures lecture.  It doesn’t tell you a lot about whether science-related cultural divides continue to hinder social progress.  But at the least it hopefully gets people thinking, and eager to participate in more robust discussions on science and cultural divides.

Finally, as a bonus I thought I would slip in the results of a counter-poll posted by Ruth Seeley:

Concerned that my poll was unduly biased towards science-types, she [rather tongue in cheek] posted a set of questions crafted to test the literary accumen of readers.  And I’m pleased to note that, just as most people taking the 2-second Two-Cultures poll were science-savvy, most people taking Ruth’s counter-poll had a pretty good idea what a semicolon is for.

What a smart bunch we are!

(And a final-final word: Dave Ferguson also posted a counter-poll that perhaps better expressed Snow’s contrast between science and the humanities.  I haven’t shown the data here as they are more complex to represent than those from mine and Ruth’s.  But if you want to see how readers coped with a question on Shakespeare’s works, check out the results here.  Im ashamed to say, I showed myself up as NOT being eligible for the humanities counter-culture!)

A 2-second distraction in the run-up to the 50th anniversary of CP Snow’s Two Cultures lecture:  Take the two-cultures poll (below), and see how your answer aligns with those from others:

Take Our Poll

(If you can’t see the poll, click here)

Now you’ve pressed the button and seen the results, here’s the background:

On May 7th 1959, the scientist, politician and novelist CP Snow highlighted a destructive gulf between the literary intellectuals of the day and scientists – his “two cultures.”  Fifty years on, the cultures have changed, but possibly not as much as we would like to believe…

So where are we now?  Do most people respect and understand science?  Have the cultures of science and the humanities reconciled their differences?  Or are there new cultures and divides emerging that are just as divisive now as Snow’s two cultures were 50 years ago?

These are issues that are going to aired far and wide around next week’s 50th anniversary of Snow’s Two Cultures lecture.  As a precursor to these discussions though I wanted to start the ball rolling by posing a question that Snow famously asked of his literary friends.

But I wanted to pose the question with a twist.

Snow asked his colleagues to describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a way of revealing their disregard for scientific understanding. I’ve long felt the question was unfair, and Snow himself acknowledged its limitations in a follow-on to his 1959 lecture.

But a little bit of me has been dying to ask the question anyway – just to see what sort of responses I got.

Here’s the twist though: Rather than ask for a formal definition of a formal Law, the question above tests people’s grasp of the underlying science, and how they judge its importance.  The possibility (or not) of perpetual motion – pendulums and other devices that go for ever and continue to work without additional fuel or maintenance – is deeply embedded in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I have a sneaky suspicion that the results will reveal a greater appreciation for science than Snow found amongst his literary colleagues 50 years ago.  But we’ll see – I’ll be blogging on what the poll does (and doesn’t) reveal next week.

And before I’m deluged with comments and criticisms, let me be clear – this isn’t a scientific poll.   It is however a great teaser to the he myriad commentaries and seminars that will undoubtedly be appearing on CP Snow and the Two Cultures over the next few weeks.  And it might just reveal something interesting – stay tuned.

And finally, please pass this link on – the more people take the 2-second poll, the more interesting the data will be

Thanks!

Update 4/28/09:  As a “humanities counterbalance,” PLEASE check Ruth Seeley’s alternative poll out – another short one, so go for it!

How many good nanotech videos have you come across?  Chances are, you’ll be struggling to name more than one of two.  But over the past few weeks there have been a few posted on the web that are worth watching.  These three in particular mesh together rather nicely to tell a story of nanotechnology’s potential, some of the hurdles that need to be overcome to make it work, and one or two of the myths that have messed around with people’s perceptions.

The first two feature footage of me in conversation with Jorge Ribas at the Discovery Channel, but don’t let that put you off – Jorge did a fantastic job of editing the conversation into something worth watching.  The third is a deliciously wicked cartoon from Ransom Riggs that has already done the Web circuit, but is well worth airing again.

THE GOOD STUFF

A glimpse into some of the cool stuff that could come about through engineering matter at a nanometer scale:

THE “BAD” STUFF

Actually, this isn’t bad at all, but video does give a glimpse into some of the challenges we face if nanotechnology is to reach it’s potential without causing unnecessary harm:

AND THE WEIRD STUFF

I thought this cartoon from Ransom Riggs was a great foil to the first two videos, as it lampoons one of the persistent myths of nanotechnology – the idea of a “gray goo” of self-replicating nanobots destroying the world.  Crazy as the idea sounds, it was Prince Charles’ concerns over gray goo that led to the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering publishing what is still one of the most authoritative assessments of nanotechnology benefits and risks.

All in all, a great introduction to the promise, hurdles and outright myths of nanotechnology.

If you have other favorite nanotech videos, please let me know.

13 “Twits” Who Will Change Your Perspective on Reality

Back in the days when Twitter was a mere slip of a social media service—around four months ago by my reckoning—it was a byword for meaningless web-chatter and banal exchanges.  But the service is growing up rapidly —not only in the number of users (which is skyrocketing, especially amongst the middle-aged apparently), but also in the quality and relevance of “tweets” posted by users.

There are a growing number of people on Twitter who genuinely challenge and engage others—in science and technology, as much as in other areas.  These “tweeps” (or “twits” as my wife prefers—which I hope is no reflection on my own “twittering”) are helping mesh together a web people from all walks who are more interested in discussing the latest science and technology—and its implications—than what Britney Spears had for breakfast.

Over at mashable.com, I’ve just posted a list of “13 “Twits” Who Will Change Your Perspective on Reality.” If you are still trying to work out what on earth Twitter’s about, or are looking for some stimulating science and technology-related company in the “Twitterverse,” check these “twits” out.

It’s an eclectic list and includes somebody who’s been dead and buried a good few years, and someone else who doesn’t post on science and technology tweets, but whom I enjoy reading anyway!  The common thread though is that they all post stuff that makes you think—even the dead guy. (Especially the dead guy, actually).

Of course, the list is hopelessly incomplete.  So please feel free to add anyone that should have been there but isn’t—either in the comments here, or over on Mashable.

And happy tweeting!

EndNotes

Sadly, I became an avid “twit” after the rather naive Emerging science and technology at 700 characters per day experiment back in December.  I can now be found adding my banalities into the mix of relative profundities on Twitter as @2020science.  Or if you prefer, you can read them in the sidebar of this blog!

My thanks to Ruth Seeley for being such an honest and proficient editor on the Mashable blog, and to Lon S. Cohen who gave me the idea in the first place – although he probably didn’t realize it at the time!  They can both be found on Twitter as @ruthseeley and @obilon

An interview with Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, Director of the International Council On Nanotechnology

Today is Ada Lovelace Day—a day when people around the world are drawing attention to women who excel in technology.  Some weeks back I pledged, along with many others (Over 1500 at last count), to blog about one of my “tech heroines.”  The aims: to highlight the role of women in technology, and to establish role models that will inspire the next generation of technologists.

Having signed up to the task it soon became obvious that this was not going to be an easy blog to write for a whole host of reasons – not least the rich and varied choice of “tech heroines”  that I could focus on. In the end, I decided on a good friend and colleague who has successfully bridged the worlds of technology development, implementation and policy: Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, of Rice University

First, the potted history:  Kristen started off as a chemist—B.S. magnum cum laude from Canisius College, followed by an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Rochester.  For the next few years she stuck to chemistry, mainly focusing on teaching.  Then in 2001 she spent a year in Washington DC as a Congressional Science Fellow—a move that marked a change in direction in her career.

Returning to Rice University in 2002, Kristen became the Executive Director for Education and Policy for the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN)—the first National Science Foundation research center focusing on the environmental applications and impacts of nanotechnology.  Then in 2006, she was appointed Director of the International Council On Nanotechnology (ICON)—a position she still holds.

It’s Kristen’s work with ICON that I want to focus on here.  The International Council On Nanotechnology was founded in 2004, at a time when concerns over the potential health, environmental and societal impacts of nanotechnology were increasing, and opportunities for stakeholders to talk freely with each other were few and far between.  Conceived by Professor Vicki Colvin (another “tech heroine”) and Kristen Kulinowski, ICON was established as an extension of the NSF-funded CBEN program to develop and communicate information regarding potential environmental and health risks of nanotechnology, thereby fostering risk reduction while maximizing societal benefit.

Since its formation, ICON has brought together people from different countries and organizations—including government, business, academia and non-government organizations (NGO’s)—to work on developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies.  It’s an organization that has played an important role in getting people talking, while addressing gaps in the nanotechnology safety knowledge base and getting information to people that need it in a form they can understand.

As a result, ICON is an organization that continues to play an important role in the development of an economically and socially important emerging technology, and does so under the deft leadership of Kristen Kulinowski.

To me, this is critical.  There’s a real need for people who are adept at generating new knowledge and translating that knowledge into practical uses.  But there’s also a need for people like Kristen, who can help translate potential technologies into socially/economically viable applications—“working at the interface between science and society.”  Without them, it’s going to be increasingly hard to transform good ideas into good products over the coming years.

I’ve known Kristen for some time, and as a member of the ICON Executive Board have had a front-row view of her work with the Council.  But rather than embarrass her (and myself) with a gushing account of her triumphs as a “tech heroine,” I thought it would be more informative to let her speak for herself.  So I drafted up some questions, and spent half an hour on the phone talking with her about her career as a leader in science and technology—who happens to be a woman.  This is how the conversation went:

You are generally seen as a leader in the field of nanotechnology, but you started out as a chemist.  Why science, and why chemistry in particular?

I was always interested in understanding how the physical world works, and got a real buzz out of solving problems.  Of course, I’ve since discovered that not everything has a black and white answer, but that fascination with understanding things and using the information is still a powerful motivator.

At college, I planned to major in psychology and biology—I wanted to do something socially useful.  But an incredibly effective and dynamic teacher opened my eyes to the beauty of organic chemistry.  Through him and others, I became fascinated by how chemistry works at a fundamental level—digging beneath the facts and figures of chemistry to understand and appreciate the underlying mechanisms.

The decision to spend a year on Capitol Hill was an interesting one.  What prompted the change in direction from science to policy?

I was writing letters of recommendation for students to do all sorts of stuff other than traditional bench-science and I thought “I want some of that.”  I’ve always been interested in the bigger picture—how people’s work impacts society—and I was interested in how this fitted in with my interest in science.  In the end, a friend talked me into applying for the Congressional Science Fellowship.  I’d talked her into doing something similar some years previously, so I guess she returned the favor!

How did your experiences in Washington DC change your perspective on science and technology?

The experience was life changing.  I almost didn’t come back to Rice, but I had a great job waiting for me where I could follow my interests in policy.  And my husband was still in Houston of course.

Having spent time on Capitol Hill, I came away with a much clearer impression of the importance and impact of science and technology on society.  It also became very clear that there are well-intentioned people on both sides of the political aisle—that ideally politics is about people trying their best to make good choices in a world that isn’t black and white.  This is perhaps one of the most important things that I learnt—that despite what some scientists think, there are rarely right and wrong answers in policy, and negotiation and compromise are essential to ensuring science and technology are used in society’s best interests.

Back to academia, and you took on a leading role in the emerging field of nanotechnology.  How do you feel your previous experience equipped you for this new role?

My new role was very much at the interface of science, technology and policy.  Coming back from my time in Washington, I had a much clearer idea of how government works, and the potential role of government in managing—and possibly hindering—development.

As CBEN got off the ground, there was a big public conversation getting underway on nanotechnology development.  Different groups were beginning to take different postures—ranging from pro to precautionary—and it was becoming increasingly clear that government decisions, as well as stakeholder actions, would have significant consequences on how the technology developed.  In particular a complex landscape was emerging that needed more than just scientific knowledge to navigate and work within.

Some of the big challenges being faced then—and still being faced—were how to translate promising and important technologies from the lab to the market; technologies such as new medical applications, or new approaches to cleaning up pollutants and reducing environmental footprints.  Ensuring society saw the benefits of these technologies would mean navigating regulatory hurdles, and finding new ways to identify and solve problems—not things that a traditional science training equips you for!

As Director of ICON, what have been some of your greatest challenges as a “technology facilitator?”

The biggest challenge has been balancing the perspectives and agendas of four very different stakeholder groups—government, industry, non-government organizations and academia.  The dynamic is complex because these groups are not monolithic—people involved in ICON bring their individual perspective to the table as well as that of the group they nominally represent.  At some point, I’ve run afoul of each of the four stakeholder groups—which represents a kind of balance, I suppose!

The space within which ICON works is much more crowded now that when we first started out.  More people are aware these days of the challenges to translating new science into effective technology-based solutions, and are getting in on the act.  I would like to think that ICON has played some role in this growing awareness.  But it does mean that it’s harder to get people’s time and attention—especially when budgets are tight.

And how about the successes you are most proud of?

ICON has achieved a lot that I’m proud of over the past few years—things like the publications database, the workplace practices survey, the Good Nano Guide that we are currently working on.  But I think the thing that I’m most proud of is that we have nurtured a community of people from very different backgrounds and perspectives who are enthusiastic about working together to ensure that this emerging technology is developed and used safely and effectively.

I’m not sure I am allowed to ask this one, but I’m going to anyway:  in what way (if any) do you feel that being a woman has prevented or enabled you to achieve what you have wanted to?

At the end of the day, I feel that I got to where I am and have achieved what I have through my abilities, not my gender.  Superficially, it’s easier to get noticed in the physical sciences if you are a woman, if only because there are still too few—but I have many tremendously bright, successful and inspiring colleagues who are also women.  It has been a challenge juggling a career and family—especially when maternity leaves have meant spending some months away from a job in a rapidly moving field I have even been asked explicitly by colleagues whether my job is compatible with motherhood. I decided to find out for myself.

And the answer:  Most definitely, yes!

Certainly from my experience, if you want to follow a path in science and technology and you have the ability and drive, the opportunities are there—no matter what your gender.

And finally, do you have any advice for women who are interested in following a career in technology—whether on the technical, commercial or policy side of things?

Very simply, follow your “joy.”  I’m extremely happy that my career has brought me to where I can work at the interface between science and society, but I could never have charted the course I took in advance—it certainly isn’t a traditional career trajectory.

I would also add, marry well—not rich, but well. ☺

What else could I possibly add to that?

(You can follow Kristen Kulinowski on Twitter, at @Kulinowski)

Postscript

This was a tough blog to write.  I wasn’t entirely convinced of the merit of singling out women excelling in technology.  But I do concede that as a man it’s difficult for me to have an unbiased perspective here, and so I am more than happy to take it on advice that highlighting women “tech heroines” will help inspire more women to pursue a career in technology.  And perhaps more importantly, it will encourage those who want to follow this career path to “follow their joy,” and not be inhibited by unnecessary barriers.

I was also concerned that writing as a man about women in technology could end up being intensely patronizing.  Hopefully the format I chose avoided most of the traps here, but for where I might have inadvertently offended, I ask the reader’s forgiveness.

Selecting a single person to write about was not easy.  As Kristen notes above, there are many inspiring women in science and technology, and I have had the privilege of working with a number of them.  I selected Kristen because her work straddles science, technology and social boundaries in a way that I am particularly interested in—and because she is extremely good at what she does.  But I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention her colleague Professor Vicki Colvin, who is the executive director of ICON, as well as the director of CBEN.  If no-one has written an Ada Lovelace blog on Vicki, they should have—she is a major player in the field of developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies, and was the driving force between CBEN and ICON becoming established.  Definitely another “tech heroine.”

And finally, there are a lot of people writing about women in technology today as part of Ada Lovelace day.  You can track them on the Ada Lovelace Day Collection Mash-up.  Alternatively, look out for tag ALD09post on relevant posts.  And if you want to know more about the day, the person it is named after, and the person who set the whole thing in motion (Suw Charman-Anderson), please do check out http://findingada.com.

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.

If you want to annoy a scientist, show them a movie that gets the little details wrong—like the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum, or biologists always have a box of Kim Wipes within arms-reach.

If you want to annoy anyone else, put them in the same room with the scientist!

Scientists love to pick apart the poor depiction of science in movies and TV programs—I know, I’ve been there.  It’s irritating, it suggests someone in authority who needs a crash course in scientific reality, and it raises very real fears that audiences will come away with warped ideas of what science is all about…

And as a result, scientists as a species tend to have a religious zeal for converting scriptwriters, producers and directors in Big Media to using literal depictions of science that would make a Creationist proud.

I bring this up because I decided to attend a session on science in the media at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.  The session—“You Ought To Be In Pictures: Science as Entertainment in Movies and Television”—attracted a large crowd.  But while many of attendees were clearly reveling in the camaraderie of scientists versus the rest of the world, I left with something of an uneasy feeling about the whole enterprise.

Let me try and explain.  I don’t mind a bit of harmless science snobbery when it comes to entertainment.  I’m excited that real scientists are consulting with scriptwriters and directors to make sure the depiction of science is at least plausible.  And, to be honest, if Hollywood called to ask me for advice, I would be off like a shot.

But what worries me is a push for realism that threatens to undermine people’s understanding of science through misplaced trust.

I suspect that few people seriously base their understanding of science and scientists on blockbuster movies—it’s generally accepted that these are works of fiction, that bend reality to tell a story.  What happens though when you begin to inject science-literalism into movies and TV shows, and let people know that what they are seeing is close to the truth?  You end up building trust within the audience—they begin believing that what they see is a literal rather than figurative representation of what science is about and how it works—which is great when the science is spot on.  But really bad when it deviates even slightly from reality.

This gets to the nub of my concern.  Once the audience trusts what they see, they will be fully justified in believing everything—because what this new science literalism does not teach is critical thinking.  And as a result, even the smallest inaccuracies—the speed with which science progresses, the complexity of the discovery process, the limits of information recovery from data—become a betrayal of that trust.

In effect, you get a CSI effect that extends to all of science—not just forensic science.

The answer—I suspect—is to think critically about the role of science in entertainment.  Unless someone can point me to clear evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use it as an educational tool.  On the other hand, I do believe everyone benefits where the thoughtful input of a science consultant adds to the plausibility and internal consistency of a movie or show.  And the idea of enthusing people about science and thinking more broadly and critically about their surroundings thrills me.

At the end of the day, entertainment is not science, and should not be seen as something to hijack for science education.  Using science to tell a story, convey a perspective or explore an issue is great—it should be encouraged.  And using entertainment to communicate science also has its place.

But science-evangelism?  Knock on someone else’s door—please!

Footnotes

I should add that while the AAAS session prompted these ruminations, a number of the speakers did seem to have their heads screwed on—and were clearly enjoying their work with shows like The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs.  Jonathan Gitlin covers the session comprehensively here.

Both the National Science Foundation and the National Academies of Science have programs linking scientists with professionals in the entertainment industry.  Details on the National Academies Science and Entertainment Exchange can be found here.

And I should add that, while I really enjoy scientifically inaccurate and implausible movies—if the story and characters are strong—I’m longing for the day when someone makes a really good science movie!  I guess I’m still a science-snob at heart!

I’ve been sitting here for over half an hour, trying to work out how to start this blog in an engaging and witty way, but have failed miserably—it’s been a long day!  Instead, let me come straight to the point, because it’s quite a simple one—please read Sir Robert Winston’s article “Why turning out brilliant scientists isn’t enough” in this week’s New Scientist.  It’s one of the clearest and most compelling commentaries on the need for scientists to listen to and engage with members of the public that I have read for some time.

OK, I guess I should say a little more—that is after all a rather terse opening paragraph!

As anyone living in the UK will tell you, Sir Robert is a highly regarded popularizer of science. .. Professor of science and society and emeritus professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London, he has a rare ability to convey complex ideas with clarity and enthusiasm.  But he also understands that scientists need to learn to listen to people—to enter a two-way dialogue with members of society who are impacted by their work.

Sir Robert notes early on in the New Scientist article that prior to an influential House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology enquiry in 1999, “many believed that for people to trust more in the value of science, it would be enough for scientists simply to educate the public.”  This is the so-called deficit model—the idea that the more you educate people, the more likely they are to make reasonable decisions—defined rather loosely as the same decisions you would make!

This is now generally recognized as being a bad model—people make decisions based on a range of values, and knowledge plays only a part in the process.  Which is why Sir Robert points out that “These days it is widely understood that fostering public engagement – rather than just mere public understanding – is of key importance.”

Sadly, I’m not convinced that this message has reached everyone that needs to hear it, which is why this article is a must-read for anyone working in science or science policy.

Sir Robert writes,

“Most scientific research in the UK is paid for by the taxpayer, and when technologies have a negative impact the consequences can be profound for everyone. The scientific knowledge we pursue is public property. We scientists have a duty not merely to tell people what we are doing (a skill not taught as well as it should be in most universities), but also to listen to people’s fears and hopes and respond to them, even when we feel their antagonism to be ill-founded. Being open in this way has been shown to have real advantages.”

In particular, he cites the ScienceWise project, set up by Kathy Sykes at the University of Bristol in the UK.

The article continues,

“A two-way dialogue – communication in the fullest sense – seems more likely than a one-way lecture to lead to a maturing of views and resolution of conflict. It can help scientists to accept that some public concerns may be justified, and that recognising them can improve their science; and it makes the public aware of the good intentions of scientists. If we show that we care about the ethical implications of our work, people are likely to be more sympathetic.”

Richard Jones’ recent article on nanotechnology, science and public engagement in the UK supports Sir Robert’s assertion that dialogue is a much more constructive and valuable process than well-based consultations and opinion-polls (and, I might add, public lectures).

Unfortunately, there are still pockets of intellectual elitism within science, and approaches to “public engagement” that smack of hubris rather than humility.  I’m constantly astounded by how many well-meaning scientists still believe that public engagement is just about communicating their knowledge to people, without that essential step of listening and reponding.  I’ve heard fellow scientists say that their work is too complex for people to understand.  This is probably true in many cases. Yet most people are quite capable of understanding the implications of science and technology in their lives, even if they struggle with understanding the science and technology itself.  And lets be honest, an expert is only an expert in their own narrow field—outside of it, they tend to be as dumb as the rest of us!

Practicing science is a privilege.  As scientists we are accountable to the society that supports us.  And we have an obligation to listen to and work with the people whom our work affects, as well as translating the science in ways that is accessible, informative and enriching.

But to achieve this more integrated relationship between science and society will take some work.  As Sir Robert’s points out, “turning out brilliant scientists isn’t enough.” We also need to turn out brilliant scientists who can engage effectively with others.

_________________

Update, Feb 6 2009. Having re-read the original post, I’ve added in a few very minor editorial corrections.  I also thought it worth linking to the following recent posts that address the role of science in society:

A “manifesto” for socially-relevant science and technology (Dec 24 2008)
Nanotechnology, science and public engagement—lessons from the UK (Jan 13 2009)
Revisiting the Civic Scientist (Feb 1 2009)

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/02/05/thank-goodness-for-sir-robert/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/02/01/revisiting-the-civic-scientist/ http://2020science.org/2009/02/01/revisiting-the-civic-scientist/#comments Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:27:43 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=826

Reading through the various science and technology offerings on the web this morning, I was struck by a conversation between Houston Chronicle reporter Eric Berger and Neal Lane, former National Science Foundation director and science advisor to President Clinton.  Not surprisingly, towards the top of the conversation is President Obama’s commitment to “restore science to its rightful place” and what this might mean.  But before this, Neal raises something that he has championed for many years now, and one that I suspect is more than ready for a new lease of life as science and policy come together under the new administration to tackle a tough portfolio of challenges—the concept of the civic scientist.

Civic scientists—according to Lane—are those scientists and engineers who “step beyond their campuses, laboratories, and institutes and into the center of their communities to engage in active dialogue with their fellow citizens.”  This is more than science communication; it’s a two-way dialogue between people who generate knowledge, and people are impacted by that knowledge—whether in the decisions they make, or the decisions other make.

Although it’s fashionable to talk about science communication these days—witness the just-launched “Science: So what? So everything” campaign in the UK—the idea of the civic scientist as originally conceived has languished somewhat in recent years… Maybe bad memories of “civics” at school are the problem.  Maybe the political climate of the past eight years hasn’t favored a more integrated perspective of science in society.  Or maybe scientists just need a little more encouragement to place their work in a social context.  Whatever the reason, the idea of scientists engaging on broader social issues isn’t as widely lauded as is perhaps should be.

As the new Obama administration works out what science’s rightful place is, and governments around the world grapple with increasingly complex global challenges—climate change, energy, water, food, poverty, equity between developed and developing nations, and a whole host of other issues—it is critical that science, technology and engineering are an integral part of the solutions.  But the old model of a one-way flow of information from science to society will not—cannot—work.  Instead, we need something far closer to Lane’s ideas on science and social responsibility.

In 1999, Neal Lane published “The Civic Scientist and Science Policy” in the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook.  In it, he clearly articulates why a new generation of “civic scientists” is necessary—not just in policy circles, but throughout society.  This, to my mind, should be required reading for anyone involved in scientific research.

Speaking to research scientists and engineers, Lane notes that

“Although scientist and nonscientist alike can marvel at the power of our knowledge in science and technology, it is the intersection of this knowledge with the goals and needs of society that is our larger responsibility. Understanding this crossroads of knowledge and needs and then acting on behalf of society will present our most challenging task.”

It is the civic scientist, Lane contents, who will be most effective at this intersection.  And to clarify this role, he asks

“Do I mean that we go out and teach science to shopkeepers, lawyers, consultants, and construction workers? Not entirely. To engage in dialogue is to listen as well as to speak. While there is great need for the public to have a better understanding of science, and we should promote this in every way possible, there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”

Let me just repeat that last bit because I think it’s important, reminding you that this is a distinguished scientist writing: “there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”

How many times do scientists feel that their role is to lecture, not to listen?  Yet clearly there is a need for a two-way dialogue if science is to be a part of addressing social challenges.

Developing these ideas, Lane writes:

“We are all aware that the advancement of civilization has, in many respects, been driven by the scientific and technological research of each succeeding generation. We so frequently hear and use the phrase “science and society” that perhaps it has become a cliché. I think we would agree that this phrase has meant that science has “a relationship with” or “a role in” society. Within this context, the world scientific community has unraveled many of the secrets of nature, and of its many life forms.

“We would agree that science is a force absolutely fundamental to our well-being and, in fact, survival. Science and society are interdependent. We are only slowly coming to recognize that science and engineering must be seriously concerned with the many and great unsolved problems of humankind.

“I have frequently pointed out that we are able to do increasingly outstanding research at the same time that many societal disparities and problems are also increasing. Although the long-held professional goals of teaching and research are noble and significant, perhaps they are not enough. Nor is it sufficient for those of us who have chosen public service on behalf of science and engineering to simply keep the research enterprise healthy and balanced, as vitally important as that is. A further goal for all of us must be to understand the physical, moral, and social problems that hold our civilization in the grip of numerous contradictions.”

There follows an exploration of the role science has within society.  In particular, Lane highlights three challenges that loomed large ten years ago:

“We know that energy, environment, and economics form the triumviral challenge of the coming century; they are inextricably wedded. If we are able to develop such new technical capabilities, they will, by their very nature, create cultural changes in energy use, economic development, and environmental protection. Developing such technical capabilities with their economic potential will require that our researchers continue to push back the frontiers of virtually every field of science and technology.”

Ten years on, and these same challenges are looming ever larger.

Lane concludes

“As we think about creating a complex global problem-solving agenda, we must first acknowledge that it is surely the greatest challenge the world scientific and engineering community could be asked to undertake. It will engage all fields from physics to psychology, from economics to biology, from electrical engineering to sociology. And in the long run it will require more than science and engineering. Policymakers will be crucial to any and all solutions.

“Science and technology and public policy empower each other’s goals. In contemporary society, neither could be appropriately effective without being a partner-participant with the other.

“Scientists and engineers cannot be expected to solve the vast societal problems from within their own professional community. On the other hand, few, if any, of these problems could be solved without the science community’s knowledge and skill base as a foundation. Intelligent public policy helps lead us toward the cultural and institutional change required to meet these needs. Only with a combination of the two can we hope to succeed.

“We could, with some legitimacy, declare the task too great, too complex, and thus too impossible. Many of us might be inclined to view these real-world dynamic systems as chaotic to a large power, without any “attractors” (strange or otherwise). There were many who said the same about the concept of the United Nations. But there were some who said this will not be easy, but we cannot risk not trying.

“The 21st century presents daunting challenges and extraordinary opportunities. If we accept those challenges and recognize those opportunities we will not only advance the frontiers of science but also address the great unsolved problems of humanity.

In the final analysis, this larger engagement does not mean a focused or fixed research agenda. It does mean openness to new research challenges and unprecedented partnerships among diverse fields and interests. It does mean a commitment to effective communication of knowledge, and connections between discovery and the use of new knowledge in service to society. And it especially means placing a high priority on education and learning for all youngsters wherever they begin their lives.”

The only things of substance that have changed between when Neal Lane wrote this in 1999 and now are the scale and magnitude of the challenges we face nationally and globally.  In this context, perhaps it’s time to revisit his idea of the civic scientist, and put renewed effort into developing a generation of scientists, engineers and technologists who understand how to use their skills in the service of society.

I spend quite a bit of my time talking to different groups about nanotechnology, including its potential and its challenges. And as a result, I’m constantly on the prowl for new ways of illustrating why nanotechnology is important. In particular, I’ve been keeping my eyes peeled for a quick and dirty (and fun) demonstration to show that size matters.

Which is why I finally cracked this weekend and started messing around with packs of Mentos Mints and bottles of Coke.

One of the important ideas underpinning nanotechnology is that, as stuff gets smaller, things change. It may be that the smaller stuff can get to new places or be used in new ways. It may just be that the stuff is able to do more of its “stuff” when it’s smaller. Or it may be that the original stuff starts behaving like completely different stuff when it gets really small.

Whatever, when it comes to nanotechnology, size matters.

But how do you convince someone of this when they can’t see or experience what is happening at the nanoscale? After all, we are all endowed with brains that have evolved to handle things we can see and touch—not stuff that is invisible to the naked eye.

One approach is to use analogies between stuff that can be seen and touched, and nanoscale materials that cannot be experienced so readily. Along these lines, I’ve been wondering for some time whether the notorious reaction between Mentos and Coke could be exploited in some way to demonstrate aspects of nanotechnology.

Dropping Mentos into a bottle of coke causes a rapid release of carbon dioxide from the liquid, and a frothy geyser to erupt from the container. (For those of you who have no idea of what I’m talking about, just check out the videos at Eepybird.com). If it’s particle surface that drives the reaction between the Mentos and the Coke, grinding the candy up into smaller bits before adding it to should lead to more vigorous “eruption.”

The result—if it works—lots of fun, and a great illustration of one way in which size matters.

Having nothing better to do this weekend, I drafted my kids and an unwitting friend of my daughters into testing the idea. The concept—crush a couple of Mentos into medium and small bits, add to a 2 liter bottle of Coke, and watch what happens.

Saved for posterity, here’s the video of the great event:

Unfortunately, the finely crushed Mentos didn’t create as stunningly superior a geyser as I had hoped. Lesson number one—there’s often a yawning chasm between hypothesis and reality. However, there was a clear size-effect: The medium sized chunks of candy gave the highest geyser, while the finest chunks led to the longest reaction.

Clearly size mattered—just not in the way that might have been predicted…

Despite the disappointing performance of the fine stuff in this instance, the experience has convinced me there’s considerable mileage in using Mentos to explore some of the ideas underpinning nanotechnology. The experiment clearly demonstrates to those involved that making something into smaller pieces changes how it behaves—that’s a pretty important concept.

But that’s just the beginning. Mentos are a great example of a particle with a core-shell structure—the outside of each Mento is different to the inside. Many engineered nanoparticles have a similar structure, so we’re on good analogy ground here.

It’s likely that the Mentos’ outer shell has something to do with the vigor of the reaction with Coke—as New Scientist reported last year, surface roughness and chemistry probably play a role in making the whole Mentos-Coke thing work. So just crushing the candy up wouldn’t necessarily make the reaction go that much faster, as you’re not adding any more of the outer coating to the mix.

However, what if that outer coating was removed? I haven’t tried this, but it would be a cool experiment to wash (or suck perpahs) the outer coating off the Mentos, and see how it affects their geyser-forming properties. You could even go one step further, and see how crushing the denuded Mentos into increasingly finer particles changed things.

This could have the makings of a fun experiment for exploring the importance of size and surfaces—and all with a pack of mints and a bottle of Coke. How much simpler could things get?

Of course, the down-side is that someone needs to clear the mess up afterwards!

Public engagement was a key feature in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and has been front and foremost in the transition between the old administration and the new.  You only have to check out change.gov to see how ideas are evolving on soliciting and evaluating opinions from a broad swath of the population.  The latest is the “Citizens Briefing Book”—top-rated ideas from everyday people, to be delivered to Obama after he is sworn in.

This emphasis on open government, citizen engagement, and the use of enabling web-based technology, is expected to spill over to the new administration big-time.  And as it does, the public discourse will inevitably encompass science and technology—it already has on the incoming administration’s website.  But this raises serious questions:  How do you pull people from all walks of life into conversations about science and technology—which are often complex—and how do you empower them to participate in making effective and influential decisions?

These are questions that have been grappled with in the US for some time—not least in the area of nanotechnology.  The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 for instance had specific provisions

“for public input and outreach to be integrated into the [National Nanotechnology] Program by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.”

This resulted in two academic Centers for Nanotechnology and Society being established—one at Arizona State University and another at the University of California Santa Barbara.  But apart from the research conducted by these centers, there has been little in the way of true public engagement on nanotechnology in the US, in terms of enabling citizens to enter a two-way dialogue with decision-makers.

Which is why I was particularly interested to read Richard Jones’ account of the UK experience, just posted on his blog Soft Machines.

Richard’s blog is a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in public engagement on science, and to make sure you do read it, I’m not going to give away much here. Needless to say, Richard clearly outlines the UK response to the 2004 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s recommendation that

“a constructive and proactive debate about the future of nanotechnologies should be undertaken now – at a stage when it can inform key decisions about their development and before deeply entrenched or polarised positions appear.”

But it is his assessment of a specific exercise in connecting public engagement to science policy, and the broader implications of this experience, that really grabs the attention.

Richard writes:

“The big question to be asked about any public engagement exercise is “what difference has it made” – has there been any impact on policy? For this to take place there needs to be careful choice of the subject for the public engagement, as well as commitment and capacity on behalf of the sponsoring body or agency to use the results in a constructive way. A recent example from the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council offers an illuminating case study. Here, a public dialogue on the potential applications of nanotechnology to medicine and healthcare was explicitly coupled to a decision about where to target a research funding initiative, providing valuable insights that had a significant impact on the decision.”

Please read the account of this exercise in full on Soft Machines—it is worth the few minutes it takes.  The bottom line is that engaging with citizens, together with input from experts, led to a more informed (and reading between the lines, socially relevant) call for research proposals in this instance.

From this point, Richard goes on to discuss the pros and cons of public engagement on science policy in a broader framework.  Writing in the context of British science, he notes

“The current interest in public engagement takes place at a time when the science policy landscape is undergoing larger changes, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world. We are seeing considerable pressure from governments for publicly funded science to deliver clearer economic and societal benefits. There is a growing emphasis on goal-oriented, intrinsically interdisciplinary science, with an agenda set by a societal and economic context rather than by an academic discipline.”

This sounds remarkably close to the message emerging from the incoming Obama administration, where science and technology in the service of society are strong themes.

Richard also emphasizes that the linear model of science—so beloved by US policy makers following in the footsteps of Vannevar Bush—“is widely recognised to be simplistic at best, neglecting the many feedbacks and hybridisations at every stage of this process.”  Instead, he notes the growing emphasis on “mode II knowledge production” … “goal-oriented, intrinsically interdisciplinary science, with an agenda set by a societal and economic context rather than by an academic discipline.”

However, this new approach to science agenda-setting requires input from the people who will be affected by decisions that are made—citizens, as well as experts.  The challenge is to develop and enact ways of achieving this that are socially responsive and tap into the “wisdom of the crowd”—rather than the “madness of the mob.”

Richard suggests that the UK experiences with nanotechnology have generally been positive, and lay the beginnings of a foundation for fruitful public engagement on science.  He concludes

“Many of the scientists who have been involved with public engagement, however, have reported that the experience is very positive. In addition to being reminded of the generally high standing of scientists and the scientific enterprise in our society, they are prompted to re-examine unspoken assumptions and clarify their aims and objectives. There are strong arguments that public deliberation and interaction can lead to more robust science policy, particularly in areas that are intrinsically interdisciplinary and explicitly coupled to meeting societal goals. What will be interesting to consider as more experience is gained is whether embedding public engagement more closely in the scientific process actually helps to produce better science.”

From my own experiences, I couldn’t agree more.  But so far, there has been little evidence of such innovative approaches being employed to develop the science and technology agenda in the US.  However with a new administration, powerful new networking tools, and a renewed impetus for socially relevant science and technology, there is every hope that public engagement might begin to take the place it deserves in the science and technology decision-making process.

After all, why should the UK have all the best ideas?

Science gone right, science gone wrong, science gone social, science gone political—it’s all here in five off-beat book recommendations to kick off 2009.  Ranging from Darwin’s Origin of Species to Sir Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the one thing I think I can guarantee is that you will struggle to find an odder bunch of literary bed-fellows!  Hope you enjoy them, and have a happy new year!

A new year, a new leaf—time for five more eclectic (some might say eccentric) book recommendations to see you through the hangover and into a brighter future.

As in the previous five good books blog, I’ve eschewed the conventional to provide as unusual a potpourri of literary delights as you will find anywhere.  And as before, I’ve tried to inject a little method into the madness—spot it if you can!

I should first apologize because this was supposed to be a quick blog, rushed off before the New Years festivities began in earnest.  But it turned into a veritable “slow blog!”

So for those of you impatient to read the recommendations and move on, here they are:

• On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
• The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow
• Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham
• Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee
• Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett

But please do read on, and discover the why behind the what… Here then, is my retrospective-prospective reading list for a technologically-enlightened 2009—enjoy!

In the number one slot: On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. How could it be anything else?  Perhaps one of the most influential books to have been written over the past couple of hundred years, the repercussions of Darwin’s seminal work are still being felt today.  2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (as if you didn’t know)—and what better excuse to go back to the source and read what the great man really wrote in what he refers to as “this abstract”—and some abstract at nearly 500 pages!

Unlike much of the debate and controversy it initiated, Origin is a carefully developed and reasoned thesis based on Darwin’s observations—evidence-based science at its best.  And rather impressively, the more we learn about life on this planet, the more Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes sense.

This is essential reading for understanding how disruptive and empowering scientific knowledge can be within society.  As society comes to rely increasingly on science and technology, there are lessons here that are well worth learning. The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859.  It’s hard to imagine a science text selling so fast nowadays.  Which makes you think—in all the talk about how essential technology and innovation are in today’s knowledge economy, have we lost sight of the underlying science?  I wonder…

Next up, another anniversary and another highly influential book.  On May 7 1959, Charles Percy Snow—better know as C. P. Snow—delivered the annual Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge.  His title:  The Two Cultures. The lecture—and its subsequent appearance in print—caught the spirit of the moment as two cultures; one dominated by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists; grew increasingly detached from each other and threatened to rob society of it’s ability to progress.

Snow’s thoughts have moulded thinking about science and society over the intervening 50 years.  But just as few who uphold or decry Darwinian evolution have read the original text, I suspect that not many who talk “knowledgeably” about the two cultures are that familiar with what the man actually said.

Having recently revisited the lecture, I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the interface between science and society to read it.  The lecture is clearly of its time—society has changed since 1959.  Yet scrape away at the surface, and many of the themes in the lecture are as relevant now as they were fifty years ago—negligible communication between the world of science and “traditional culture,” disrespect for science literacy (as distinct from technology familiarity), and the importance of ensuring the scientific revolution breaks down socially indefensible barriers—especially between the rich and the poor.

Today the cultures are different, and the boundaries between them blurred.  But the bottom line is that we are more dependent than ever on science in society, yet more ignorant than ever on how science works, and how to use it wisely.

If Darwin demonstrated how disruptive science can be, Snow illuminated how essential it is to harness and use its disruptive power for good within society—or suffer the consequences.

As an aside, even more significant (in my opinion) than the original Rede lecture is Snow’s 1963 assessment of the lecture’s impact.  In The Two Cultures: A Second Look, C.P. Snow finds the freedom to explain more clearly what he was really getting at in the lecture.  Here he explains the use of the “two cultures” as a vehicle to explore far more profound aspects of the science-society relationship—many just as important yet overlooked today as they were then.  Quoting from the beginning of the essay:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture.  Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their intellectual concern.  This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life.  It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future.  It is making it difficult or impossible for us to take good action.”

Read these essays—they are important!

Third in the list comes something a little lighter:  Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham. Published in 1960—right on the coat-tails of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures—it is a fictitious tale of a scientific discovery leading to longer lives for a select few, and the social and moral challenges this raises.

Admittedly, the book is dated—it was written nearly fifty years ago after all.  But it’s still a great read.  And more importantly, it raises questions about the development and use of disruptive scientific knowledge that are highly relevant to today.

The story revolves around the discovery of a lichen-based compound that can extend a person’s lifespan by a factor of three.  But the compound cannot be synthesized, and the source is limited.  The moral questions raised are complex—longer life expectancy could lead to a more reflective society, more time to find solutions to pressing problems, greater quality of life.  But it could also lead to social injustice—widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and initiate social unrest.

The context may be very 1960’s, but the general issues resonate strongly with challenges facing society today as science and technology become increasingly complex.  And just as society was ill-equipped to handle disruptive science back in the 1960’s, it must be asked whether we are any better off now.

The fourth book in this list of five is something of an outsider—Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee. 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this account of village life in rural England in the early twentieth century—anniversaries emerging as something of a theme here.  Most of the book has nothing to do with science and technology.  But it is worth reading for two reasons:

First, it is a beautifully crafted account of pre-industrial revolution English village life—I guarantee it will fill you for nostalgia, even if you have never seen an English village!

But more to the point, Lee begins to chart the enormous changes wrought on this thousand year old way of life by the industrial revolution—what Snow referred to as the beginnings of the scientific revolution we are still in.  If you get the chance, read the final chapter of the book.  While Lee is ambivalent on whether the changes he witnessed over the course of his youth were for good or ill, you cannot help but reflect on where the scientific revolution is leading us as you absorb his prose.

To whet your appetite, this is from the beginning of the final chapter:

“The last days of my childhood were also the last days of the village.  I belonged to that generation which saw, by chance, the end of a thousand years’ life.  The change came late on our Costwold valley, didn’t really show itself till the late 1920’s; I was twelve by then, but during that handful of years I witnessed the whole thing happen.

“Myself, my family, my generation, were born in a world of silence; a world of hard work and necessary patience, of backs bent to the ground, hands massaging the crops, of waiting on weather and growth; of villages like ships in the empty landscapes and the long walking distances between them; of white narrow roads, rutted by hooves and cart-wheels, innocent of oil or petrol, down which people passed rarely, and almost never for pleasure, and the horse was the fastest thing moving.  Man and horse were all the power we had—abetted by levers and pulleys.  But the horse was king, and almost everything grew around him: fodder, smithies, stables, paddocks, distances, and the rhythms of our days.  His eight miles an hour was the limit of our movements, as it had been since the days of the Romans.  That eight miles an hour was life and death, the size of our world, our prison.”

Then came cars and machines and science and technology…

Lee’s eloquent prose demonstrates just how disruptive science and technology innovation is.  The innovation can lead to both good and bad—both Lee and Snow clearly acknowledge this.  The trick it would seem—the moral imperative even—is to act to ensure the good outweighs the bad.

Last but most definitely not least comes another novel, and a real gem of a book: Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

(yes, Terry has just received a well-deserved “K”.)

A word of warning up front: This is a grown-up book masquerading as a child’s story. So you might at first dismiss it.  But you do so at your peril, for Pratchett weaves an enlightening and challenging tale about science, society and religion that succeeds where many academic tomes have failed.

The story revolves around a young boy living on a Pacific island who looses his whole community to a tsunami, but ends up building a new one from the flotsam and jetsam of society that wash up on the shores.  This seemingly simple setting allows Pratchett to explore the barriers between races, cultures, philosophies, religion and science, and what can be achieved when these are broken down.

The tale is set in a parallel world, which rather delightfully enables Pratchett to bend the history of science somewhat, and the activities of some of its leading lights.  There is a beautiful homage to the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Patrick Moore in the closing pages!

But the power of this book—and it is powerful—comes from Pratchett’s knack of shining a searing spotlight on the human condition in the most gentle and humorous of ways.

Nation covers may themes, one of which is the foolishness of blind belief.  Of course, this includes religious beliefs in the book.  But it also extends to scientific “beliefs.”  And there is a clear message here for societies facing a science and technology-dominated future: Learn from the past, respect evidence, and communicate across barriers.

To wrap up, while this is an odd set of recommended reading by anyone’s reckoning, hopefully the thread holding the list together is clear—addressing the challenges and opportunities of science and technology within society.  Writing on the brink of 2009, science and technology innovation seem more important than ever.  Yet we seem further than ever in understanding how to ensure everyone benefits from advances that are made.

Hopefully revisiting (or visiting for the first time) these books will provide a new perspective on making wise choices over the coming year.

Happy reading, and happy 2009!

_________________________

Footnotes, added 1/1/09

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is currently available in many imprints – check out Amazon.com for further details.

The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow, is currently published by Cambridge University Press (in the Canto series).  This edition includes both the 1959 lecture, the 1963 essay, and an excellent introduction by Stefan Collini.

Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham was recently re-released by Penguin Books UK.  US readers will need to explore that archaic institution the Library… or pay for international shipping!

Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee, is currently published in the US by David R. Godine. In the UK, the publisher is Random House.

Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett, is published by Random House in the UK, and HarpurCollins in the US.

For more on the “slow blog,” check out Todd Sieling’s Slow Blog Manifesto!

In 2003, Harvard University’s Sheila Jasanoff wrote about what she termed “Technologies of Humility.” Recognizing the growing disconnect between technological progress and its effective governance, 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.”  Five years on, her (still radical) ideas resonate deeply with the science and technology ambitions of the incoming Obama administration.

Sitting down this morning, I had intended to write about three papers recently published on-line in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.  The papers (by Kahan et al., Pidgeon et al. and Sheufele et al.)—which were widely reported on a few weeks back—consider factors influencing “public” responses to nanotechnology, and challenge long-held beliefs that knowledge leads to acceptance.

However, I became distracted!  Searching for an original frame for these studies, I returned to Jasanoff’s 2003 paper “Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing Science,” published in the journal Minerva (Minerva 41:223-244).  Reading it, I was struck afresh by how germane Jasanoff’s ideas are, how completely they seemed to have been ignored in US policy making, and how important they are to the science and technology agenda of the incoming Obama administration.

Rather than read a re-hash from me of what is an eloquently written and very accessible paper, I would strongly recommend you pour yourself a glass of good wine (a cup of coffee or fine tea will do just as well), carve out some quality time, and read the original—which is downloadable from here [PDF, 120 KB].  It is after all the holiday season, and what better than a good read to fill the long hours before the grind of work begins once again!

But just in case you are in a hurry and care to put up with my crude and flawed overview, here you are:

Jasanoff starts out:

“Long before the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the anthrax attacks through the US mail, and the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, signs were mounting that America’s ability to create and operate vast technological systems had outrun her capacity for prediction and control.”

Looking back over 20 years of “ ‘normal accidents’, which were strung like dark beads through the latter years of the twentieth century and beyond” Jasanoff notes that

“Scientific and technical advances bring unquestioned benefits, but they also generate new uncertainties and failures, with the result that doubt continually undermines knowledge, and unforeseen consequences confound faith in progress.”

This opens up a discussion on risk, which Jasanoff argues, is not “a matter of simple probabilities, to be rationally calculated by experts and avoided in accordance with the cold arithmetic of cost-benefit analysis,” but rather is part of the human condition, and “woven into the very fabric of progress.”

“Critically important questions of risk management cannot be addressed by technical experts with conventional tools of prediction. Such questions determine not only whether we will get sick or die, and under what conditions, but also who will be affected and how we should live with uncertainty and ignorance. Is it sufficient, for instance, to assess technology’s consequences, or must we also seek to evaluate its aims? How should we act when the values of scientific inquiry appear to conflict with other fundamental social values? Has our ability to innovate in some areas run unacceptably ahead of our powers of control? Will some of our most revolutionary technologies increase inequality, promote violence, threaten cultures, or harm the environment? And are our institutions, whether national or supranational, up to the task of governing our dizzying technological capabilities?”

According to Jasanoff, effective technology management needs to go far beyond the “speaking truth to power” paradigm that still seems to link knowledge to power.  And in particular, greater accountability in the production and use of scientific knowledge is essential.

“Accountability in one or another form is increasingly seen as an independent criterion for evaluating scientific research and its technological applications, supplementing more traditional concerns with safety, efficacy, and economic efficiency.”

But how can new approaches to establishing and ensuring accountability be developed within the constrains of existing ways of doing business?  Jasanoff argued back in 2003 that the time was ripe for seriously re-evaluating existing models and approaches.  And at the close of 2008, her recommendations are all the more pertinent for a lack of enlightened progress in the intervening years.

From this starting point, Jasanoff develops the idea 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?”  These are presented as a counter-balance to what she refers to as the modern reliance on “technologies of hubris”—a command and control approach to science and technology that seeks to clear the way for science-driven innovation.  Instead, Jasanoff reasons that

“there is a need for ‘technologies of humility’ to complement the predictive approaches: to make apparent the possibility of unforeseen consequences; to make explicit the normative that lurks within the technical; and to acknowledge from the start the need for plural viewpoints and collective learning.”

In developing her ideas, Jasanoff highlights problems that continue to plague the sustainable development of emerging technologies—especially when it comes to addressing and managing potential risks.  In discussing the limitations of conventional peer review in the context of oversight and risk management, she notes that a spate of highly-publicized cases of alleged fraud in science in the 1980’s showed that

“regulatory science, produced to support governmental efforts to guard against risk, was fundamentally different from research driven by scientists’ collective curiosity.”

This is a lesson that the US government still seems to be struggling with—at least when it comes to nanotechnology—if the recent report from the National Academies of Science is anything to go by.

The issue of peer-review opens up the question of how science should be evaluated within different contexts.  Jasanoff remarks that, as new approaches to knowledge production are developed, so new ways of assessing quality are needed.

“Besides old questions about the intellectual merits of their work, scientists are being asked to answer questions about marketability, and the capacity of science to promote harmony and welfare.”

This is challenging the old way of doing things, and raising the need for new ways of ensuring socially responsive and responsible science and technology.  As Jasanoff points out, “science that draws strength from it’s socially-detached position is too frail to meet the pressures put upon it by modern society.”

The overarching message here—and Jasanoff delves deeper into the problems and potential solutions than these notes reflect—is that new approaches are needed to partnering with society in the science and technology enterprise.  And she reflects that

“while national governments are scrambling to create new participatory forms, there are signs that such changes may reach neither far enough nor deeply enough to satisfy the citizens of a globalizing world.”

Sobering words that are, if anything, more relevant now than they were five years ago.

But what is the solution?  Jasanoff develops four focal points for socially relevant and responsible science and technology—framing, vulnerability, distribution and learning.  These are packed terms, and you really need to read the paper to understand better what she is proposing.  But here are some pointers:

Framing: The quality of solutions to social problems depends on the way they are framed.  Get the framing wrong, and the solutions suffer.  Jasanoff argues that frame analysis—how you define and approach a problem—is a critically important yet neglected tool for policy-making, which would benefit from greater public input.

Vulnerability: Population-based approaches to risk assessment and management typically overlook the condition and perspectives of individuals, and in doing so underplay the importance of various socio-economic factors.  Jasanoff notes that through participation in the analysis of their own vulnerability, ordinary citizens may regain their status as active subjects, rather than remain objects in yet another expert discourse.

Distribution: Issues here stem from “end-of pipe” approaches to legitimizing science and technology advances, and disconnects between groups that benefit from advances, and those that pay for them.  Jasanoff suggests that sustained interactions between decision-makers, experts and citizens, starting at the upstream end of research and development, could yield significant dividends in exposing the distributive implications of innovation.

Learning: There’s a tendency within the science and technology community to think that increased learning reduces divergence in opinions—as if there is one true “answer,” and more learning is the means to discovering it (see Kahan el al. in particular on this).  But as Jasanoff points out, experience is subject to many interpretations—as much in policy-making as in literary or historical analysis.  In other words, while the science might be clear, the decisions it leads to rarely are.  Jasanoff recommends that new avenues be designed through which societies can collectively reflect on the ambiguity of their experiences, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of alternative explanations.

Looking through Jasanoff’s recommendations, her emphasis on citizen participation in governing science and technology comes to the fore.  It is clear—from her perspective—that old-style command and control models of science and technology innovation no longer work, and that change is needed.

Sadly, in the US at least, we seem no closer to making progress than we were five years ago.  The recent National Academies report on the US government’s nanotechnology risk-research strategy indicated that, despite huge efforts to get things right within the federal government, outmoded paradigms and bureaucratic constraints undermined the whole process.  And movement on citizen participation in governing nanotechnology is near non-existent—despite clear calls for progress to be made in the 2003 Twenty First Century nanotechnology R&D Act.

And nanotechnology provides just one example—emerging technologies like synthetic biology, and the convergence between nanotech, biotech and information tech, are poised to stress the system to a far greater extent than nanotechnology alone has so far done.  How then will our “technologies of hubris” cope?

The solution is to rethink the interface—or contract if you like—between science and society.  When better to start this process of rethinking than with a fresh new science and technology-focused administration.  And where better to start with Jasanoff’s technologies of humility.

And those three papers that started this rather side-tracked discussion?  I must beg Dan, Dietram and Nick’s forgiveness because, excellent and relevant as their papers are, I have run out of space!

Instead, I would direct you to Richard Jones’ excellent Nature editorial on the three papers, together with his blog at Soft Machines.  Or if you prefer a raunchier style of commentary, check out Tim Harpur’s thoughts at TNTlog.

And as you read both the papers and the commentaries, think about what might need to change for these insights to lead to more socially integrated science and technology development.

____________

Endnotes

The three Nature Nanotechnology papers I woefully neglected to comment on are:

Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2008). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.362.

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E. and Shirley S. Ho, S. S. (2008). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.361.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2008). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341.

Sheila Jasanoff’s 2003 paper is:

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-244. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025557512320

]]> http://2020science.org/2008/12/24/a-manifesto-for-socially-relevant-science-and-technology/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2008/12/17/saints-or-synners/ http://2020science.org/2008/12/17/saints-or-synners/#comments Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:42:12 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=587

Policy, public perceptions, and the opportunities and challenges of synthetic biology

Synthetic biology—a supreme expression of scientific hubris, or the solution to all our problems?

Like everything in life, I suspect that the answer to the question is far from black and white.  Yet what is clear is that this emerging science and technology that merges evolutionary biology with systematic engineering raises many exciting new possibilities, together with a heap of complex social, ethical and even religious questions.

Striking the right balance between these opportunities and challenges will require people working together in new and innovative ways—especially those involved in researching, developing, using and overseeing synbio.  If the emerging technology is to reach its potential, some tough decisions are going to have to be made at some point on what is developed, how it is used, and how it is regulated.  And the more these decisions are based on sound science and informed thinking, the better.

This is the challenge a new initiative at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has set its sights on.  The just-launched Project on Synthetic Biology aims to foster informed public and policy discourse concerning the advancement of the field, working in collaboration with researchers, governments, industries, non-government organizations and others.  Supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the project will draw on experience gained in addressing science and technology policy issues by the Project on Emerging Technologies—so you can expect to see some familiar faces here ☺

Rather than write a tedious infomercial for the new project, I would suggest instead that you check out the snazzy new website at www.synbioproject.org.  Having said that, there are three things worth highlighting:

1.  Trends in American and European Press Coverage of Synthetic Biology.  Tracking the last five years of coverage.

The launch of the new project coincides with the publication of a new report on US and European Press coverage of synthetic biology, by Eleonore Pauwels and Ioan Ifirm.

The data-rich report notes that in the short term, public awareness and understanding of synthetic biology will be influenced by press coverage, and especially how the field is framed in the media.  In an area of growing press coverage on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis shows small but relevant differences between American and European coverage.  The European press has typically focused more on addressing risks and benefits together, and highlighted benefits in the areas of health and energy.  In contrast, US coverage shows a bias towards covering benefits over risks and benefits combined, with an emphasis on energy and environmental applications.

The report authors recommend further assessing public perceptions to synthetic biology, promoting a transatlantic perspective on potential risks, and engaging citizens in the development of synbio.  Read the full report here.

2.  Synthetic Biology on the Nanofrontier?

This is a new audio podcast of a conversation between science reporter Karen Schmidt, and synthetic biology pioneer Jay Keasling.  Keasling is well known for his work on a new synthetic biology-based route to producing artemisinin—an anti-malarial drug—and  the use of a similar synthesis route to producing a new generation of biofuels.  This is a great podcast—perfect for the morning commute—and can be downloaded here.

3.  Your chance to win… small!

And finally, but definitely most importantly, the launch of the new project is being celebrated by a not-too-taxing quiz on synthetic biology.  Get the answers write (or keep on trying until you do), and you get the chance to win an iPod nano—perfect for listening to the Jay Keasling podcast on!  [Access the quiz here]

Synthetic biology is emerging at an interesting time for any new technology; where global challenges are crying out for new technological fixes, but hurdles to safe and successful development are constantly changing.  The new project aims to steer a path through this complex landscape, and help ensure synthetic biology is developed on sound science and informed decision-making.

So that rather than ending up with a bunch of synbio synners, we get the synthetic biology saints the world deserves.

(And I must apologize for such an ugly pun!  I blame overwork and not enough alcohol)

UPDATE, Dec 19:

The Alfred P Sloan Foundation has just announced a new $1.6 million synthetic biology initiative, that includes projects at the Hastings Center and the J. Craig Venter Institute, as well as the Wilson Center.

The new effort effort brings together leading scientists, ethicists and public policy specialists to explore the field’s potential benefits and risks, as well as ethical questions and regulatory issues.

From the release:

At the Hastings Center (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/), Foundation funding will allow for in-depth investigation into ethical issues that may arise in connection with developments in synthetic biology. The project aims to make serious contributions to scholarly literature, produce a base for further scholarship, and inform public policymaking.

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation funding will allow the J. Craig Venter Institute (http://www.jcvi.org/) to examine potential societal concerns associated with developments in synthetic genomics. The project will both inform the scientific community about these issues while also educating the policy and journalistic communities about the science. As a result, scientists, journalists and policymakers will be able to engage in informed discussions.

A grant to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/) will analyze evolving public perceptions of potential societal risks that may arise related to research in and applications of synthetic biology, clarify whether our existing regulatory systems can address relevant risks that may be associated with the science, and inform and educate policymakers.

_______________________________

Related posts:

Intrigued by synthetic biology?  These previous blog posts might be of interest:

Synthetic biology: Lessons from synthetic chemistry

Synthetic Biology 4.0—changing the way science is done

Small particles are sexy; Synthetic biologists are sexier!

Synthetic biology and the public: Time for a heart to heart?

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture

Synthetic biology and nanotechnology

Getting serious with Twitter

I’m gutted.  I thought that blogging was where it is at—the cutting edge of the “new media” wave transforming modern communication.  But I now discover that I’m at least four years behind the times—a veritable dinosaur in the world of “Web 2.0!”

Which is why I’m pushing myself out on a limb with a bold experiment in social network communication this week!

November’s edition of Wired Magazine ran a story entitled “Twitter, Flickr, Facebook Make Blogs Look So 2004.” And just in case you didn’t get the message about blogging from the title, the opening paragraph rammed it home:

“Thinking about launching your own blog? Here’s some friendly advice: Don’t. And if you’ve already got one, pull the plug.”

The blogosphere is being deluged by a stream of “paid bilge” according to the article… drowning out the voices of original writers.  But as one form of self-expression becomes overwhelmed, others emerge—and social networking sites like YouTube, Flickr and Facebook are where the action is these days.

Add to that list Twitter—a high profile “microblogging” site that is attracting a growing following.  According to Wired,

“Twitter … is to 2008 what the blogosphere was to 2004.”

However, Twitter limits posts to text messages no longer than 140 characters—including spaces.  Great for letting friends and family know you have just had your first coffee of the day.  But what if you want to impart some slightly more substantive words of wisdom?

I suspect that web-based social networking is in danger of flooding our lives with trivia, making it increasingly hard to assimilate and make use of complex information.  Yet if this is where people are exchanging ideas and “hanging out” these days, perhaps it’s time to experiment with using the “new” new media, rather than simply dismissing it.

And so for the next five days—starting Monday—I propose to roll up my sleeves and attempt some serious “twittering.”

Here’s the plan:  Between Monday December 8 and Friday December 12, I aim to submit five non-trivial posts a day to the 2020science Twitter feed that tackle emerging science and technology issues—that’s emerging science and technology at 700 characters per day!

You can follow my progress at http://twitter.com/2020science.  You can even sign up with Twitter and comment directly on the posts—as long as you keep within 140 characters!

I suspect I’m setting myself up for failure here.  But I did want to see whether it’s possible to convey something meaningful within the attention-span of today’s web-users.  Because—and this is probably important—as more and more people become part of the digital sound-bite community, effective communication will depend on working within the new media—despite its flaws.

Happy Twittering!

(Expressed in 2720 characters – including spaces)

Stephanie Meyer, blockbuster movies and emerging technologies

If you are a teenager, or have teenage kids, you are probably keenly aware that the movie of Stephanie Meyer’s best-seller “Twilight” opens this weekend.  (At least, if you live in the US—readers elsewhere have a few more weeks of nail-biting anticipation to go.)

Being something of a cynical opportunist when it comes to blogging, I’ve been wracking my brains for a plausible link between the movie and emerging technologies.

Trouble is, I haven’t read the book, and it’s one of those scary ones that is thick enough to build houses with!

So, I compromised, and asked my thirteen-year-old daughter Bethany—and long-time fan of the Twilight series—to write the blog for me ☺

As a result, I’m proud to present the first guest blog on 2020science.org:

Twilight is a series of books that I, like so many other girls my age, have become addicted to. The first book is about to be released as a movie, and as my father twisted my arm to write something for 2020science, I thought I’d write about how science and technology relate to the conflicts and events in the story.

The widely popular Twilight saga by Stephanie Meyer is a love story between Bella Swan, an average teenager who goes to live with her father in Forks, Washington, and the immortal vampire, Edward Cullen. Throughout the series, Bella tries to convince Edward to change her into a vampire so that she can live forever with him. Edward is hesitant, though, because if Bella becomes like him she’ll have to leave behind everything she knows.

As the series develops the opinions of Jacob Black, a werewolf and Bella’s best friend, become important. Jacob hates the vampires because his Native American tribe’s beliefs have taught him that they are untrustworthy and dangerous, and besides, he doesn’t want Bella to go.  And so the story revolves around two very powerful but very different groups, with Bella in the middle.

So what has this got to do with emerging technologies?  Here’s one possibility: In the real world, what would happen if two countries or groups were caught up in a war over a new technology? It may be something special, like the ability to make other people’s weapons useless.  This is a bit like what happens in the last book in the Twilight series, Breaking Dawn. You see, when Bella finally becomes a vampire she possesses a unique gift of being able to shield people from other vampire’s harmful powers. That is the kind of ability that, in the real world, could give a single country or group enormous power.  And in the books it certainly comes in handy when Bella and her new family get into trouble with the ruling group of vampires.

But what I really think is interesting is that one of Bella’s regrets in the book is that she thinks that, while she’s human, she doesn’t deserve Edward. She sees herself as a boring human, and that’s how most other people see her as well.

The reason Edward took an interest in her, though, was because he couldn’t read her mind like he could other people’s.  Bella was different in a small but important way, and that made her special.

This aspect of the story shows that an important quality in something may be hidden. For instance, if you just looked at a plant—maybe from the tropical rainforest—you probably couldn’t guess if it contained chemicals that could lead to a cure for some diseases.  Or if someone develops an amazing new technology—perhaps something that can generate energy from the sun as effectively as plants do—it may have downsides that aren’t immediately apparent.

That is why it’s probably important to look carefully into otherwise ordinary things when it comes to science and technology.  Because by not looking into them carefully, important things might be missed, that can either be used for good, or cause harm.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much the book Twilight says about emerging technologies.  And the movie will probably be even less relevant, as Hollywood tends to dumb things down.

But it’s a great book anyway, and by thinking about the connections with science and technology, at least I get a free ticket to the movie—thanks Dad!

Bethany Maynard

The silent rave might seem a rather bizarre social phenomenon; a group of strangers converging in a public place and dancing to their own individual iPod soundtracks.  But I have a sneaking suspicion that the emerging technology community has been indulging in the new tech-equivalent of silent raves for some time now.

These suspicions are probably the delusional by-product of jetlag.  But travelling back from the latest in a long line of multi-stakeholder nanotechnology meetings last week, the analogy hit a chord…

Imagine a meeting room where people are plugged into their own personal mental iPods: The scientists immersed in Avril Lavigne’s “Complicated” (apart from the toxicologists, who are playing “Another One Bites the Dust”); the industry folk tuned in to “I Did It My Way”; with the NGO’s rocking along to “Holding Out for a Hero” (with either Bonnie Tyler or Jennifer Saunders taking the lead, depending on how “hip” the group is).  And all the while the policy makers in the room listening to Bob Geldof and “I Don’t Like Mondays”—over and over again…

This is a recipe for a great time (for some), little progress, and a lot of noise.  And it seems to be one that is followed at many meetings designed to address the broader social, health and environmental issues of emerging technologies.

The problem is twofold I suspect:  People in different discipline and with different agendas find it hard to listen to and understand other perspectives. And in the absence of a clear focus for dialogue, it is near-impossible to find a common language to facilitate communication.  In the silent rave analogy: People find it really hard to unplug their mental iPods and listen to other tunes; especially if there isn’t a strong communal tune to replace their personal soundtracks.

This is hardly a blinding revelation.  But the point is nevertheless an important one if real progress is to be made in developing sustainable emerging technologies.  The question is: how can people be encouraged to unplug and join the conversation?

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I’m pretty sure one of the first steps will be to find that clear focus for dialogue—not just a woolly desire to talk about ill-defined implications of emerging technologies, but a clear statement of what the challenges are to making progress.  And that might mean dropping pre-conceived ideas of what defines any particular emerging technology (like nanotechnology), and focusing instead on what the science is revealing—and how this challenges conventional approaches to ensuring safe, environmentally sound and socially acceptable use.  Perhaps if this focus is found, it will lead to a communal tune so irresistible that people will start turning off their mental iPods, and tuning in to the group conversation.

In fairness, the meeting that sparked off these thoughts was more productive than many I have participated in.  But more is needed if we (as stakeholders in getting emerging technologies right) are to stop going round in circles and start making some serious headway into a technologically secure future.

And as for what is playing on my mental iPod:  Fortunately, I unplugged myself a long time back.  Funny thing though, no matter which meeting I’m at, I keep hearing strains of Pink Floyd’s “Is There Anyone Out There?” Strange that!

So, you have a cool new science that could make a major impact on global challenges like energy, disease and pollution and you want to make sure it reaches its full potential.  What do you do?  At some point, having a heart to heart with “the public” might be a good idea.  Especially if your “cool new science” involves playing around with the very building blocks of life!

A just-released national survey on awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology from the Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies should help kick-start this conversation.  For the first time, this annual telephone poll has included questions on synthetic biology—the use of advanced science and engineering to make or re-design living organisms (such as bacteria) so that they can carry out specific functions.  The results are intriguing, and should help inform the path toward responsible and socially acceptable uses of synthetic biology.  But more on this later…

I have been eagerly awaiting the results of the survey for some time.  Would people’s awareness and attitudes match those found for nanotechnology, or would the extension of nanometer-scale manipulation to the biological world raise new fears and hopes?  And how would the concept of making new life from dead chemicals resonate with the religiously inclined?

Impatient for results, I tried out a quick experiment on my eleven-year-old son.  Presented with a one-line definition of synthetic biology similar to the one above, I asked what his first thoughts were.  The results: “Isn’t that against the Bible?”  Followed immediately by “Isn’t that like Frankenstein’s monster?”

At this point I should establish that the reason for using such a young and naïve subject was to gauge how accessible the definition for synthetic biology was that we were developing.  But his responses intrigued me.  He is not overtly religious (although he does attend church regularly), and he is untainted by the Frankenfood debates surrounding genetically modified foods.  Yet he immediately focused in on two key areas that seem to dog attitudes toward biological manipulation.  Understandably therefore, I was keen to see whether the results of the current telephone poll—conducted across the United States by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc.—matched these concerns.

The results of the poll weren’t as clear-cut as my son’s response, but they did highlight some interesting points.

First off, synthetic biology is not on the radar for most people.  67% of the thousand people polled had never heard of the field, while a mere 2% claimed they had heard a lot about it.  Yet when asked whether they thought the benefits would outweigh the risks (or vice versa), 60% of people who had never previously heard of synthetic biology voiced an opinion.  That’s right—they didn’t know what it was, but they sure knew whether they liked it or not!

This has echoes of Dan Kahan’s work at the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.  Dan has shown previously that when people are initially introduced to nanotechnology, their attitudes are driven by an emotional response—their gut feeling.  Such a gut-response to nanotechnology is seen in the current poll.  But in this case, more people were willing to make an initial judgment on synthetic biology than nanotechnology.

I mention Dan’s work because he found that when people leaned more about nanotechnology, their opinions were heavily influenced by their value systems; moral, political, religious, or otherwise; and not just by the science.  If this holds true for synthetic biology, people with strong religious beliefs might be expected to respond differently to more information on synbio than those less-inclined to a religious perspective—the “Isn’t that against the Bible?” response.

To gauge poll participants’ informed responses to synthetic biology, they were read two short paragraphs—one discussing its potential benefits and the other discussing its potential risks (see the PEN report for the paragraphs).  The order in which these were read was randomly rotated.  Participants were then asked again whether they thought the risks of synbio would be greater, the benefits greater, or whether the two would be about equal.

I was particularly interested in this question of how religious values affected people’s informed response.  Delving into the data, respondents who never attend religious services were ambivalent on the risks and benefits of synthetic biology—there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who thought benefits would outweigh risks, and vice versa.  But people who attended religious services once or more per week were on balance more likely to feel that potential risks would dominate potential benefits.

Of course, it may be that this trend simply reflects a more risk-averse attitude amongst the religiously active.  But comparing the synthetic biology data with the informed attitudes to nanotechnology counters this suggestion.  In the case of nanotechnology, people who attended religious services once or more per week were ambivalent on whether the risks and benefits of the technology would dominate, while the religiously un-engaged clearly felt on balance that the benefits outweighed the risks.

A similar comparison between attitudes toward synthetic biology and nanotechnology was seen when poll subjects were separated out by gender, education and income.
Men on balance felt the benefits of nanotechnology would outweigh the risks, while women were on the fence.  But when it came to synthetic biology, men were on the fence, and on balance women felt the risks would dominate.

College graduates anticipated the benefits of nanotechnology would dominate the risks on balance, while people educated to high school or less were ambivalent.  For synbio, the graduates were undecided on whether risks or benefits were greater, while on balance those who only reached high school education or less thought the risks would be greater.

People earning more than $75 thousand a year thought the benefits of nanotechnology would be more significant on balance, while those earning less than $30 thousand per year weren’t sure.  In the case of synthetic biology, the participants earning $75 thousand or more weren’t so sure about risks and benefits, while those earning less than $30 thousand were sure on balance that the risks would be greater.

Overall, there were plenty of people within each gender, education, income and religious observance group who bucked the trends—anticipating more benefits when the majority were expecting higher risks, and vice versa.  But the overall picture is one of nanotechnology as an area where people are on balance either ambivalent about risks and benefits or anticipating the benefits to dominate, and synthetic biology as an area where people are either on the fence or anticipating the risks to dominate.

This is critical information to anyone trying to chart a course to successful and sustainable uses of synthetic biology.  Clearly, there’s something about the conjunction of “synthetic” and “biology” that drives an emotive and values-driven response in people that isn’t seen for nanotechnology.  But what to do about this?  If synthetic biology is truly as important as its proponents believe, there’s a lot of work to do ahead in engaging with people to help develop socially acceptable applications.

Fortunately, this “new cool science” is still in its infancy, and the opportunities to engage with “the public” are still there.  But it is growing up fast—The J. Craig Venter Institute is racing ahead towards creating the first artificial bacteria, and “biohackers” are learning how to re-engineer life at an increasingly rapid pace.

Some deep soul-searching between synthetic biologists and the public may not be in the making yet.  But a serious heart to heart will be needed sooner rather than later, if synbio is to reach its full potential without major growing pains.

How cool is this: A nanotech-enabled labcoat to protect the user against… well, nanomaterials presumably, amongst other things!  

The labcoat—which uses Nanotex technology to make it stain resistant—is part of a major update to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory that tracks manufacture-identified nano-products.  Other eye-catchers in the update include a hunting shirt that resists bloodstains, a nanotech-based adhesive for McDonald’s burger containers, and an oven-like device for sanitizing whiffy shoes.

Of course, there are plenty of people who feel that consumer products represent an altogether too trivial side of nanotechnology.  And I have to agree that on the scales of virtue, a nano-silver bidet would find it hard to compete with the next generation of nano-enabled solar cells or targeted cancer drugs.  Yet trivial as many of the 800+ products in the updated inventory may seem, this is where most people will probably first come across the technology, and start to form their early opinions on whether it’s a good thing, or not so good.  

And in this bizarrely-connected world within which we live, good experience with nano-bidets (for example) are more likely than not to make the introduction of nano-cancer drugs go just that little bit smoother.

But beyond initial impressions, consumer products in their broadest sense are where some of the first widespread exposures to engineered nanomaterials are likely to occur.  And this means that care is needed over how nanomaterials are used in these products, and how that use is monitored and regulated.  

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products.  But recently, the CPSC has been struggling with low-tech problems like lead in children’s toys, and there is concern that this doesn’t bode well for the agency’s ability to tackle high tech nanotechnology-based products.

This is the conclusion of a new report by E. Marla Felcher of Harvard University’s Kennedy School.  In “The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology,” published by the Project on Nanotechnologies, Felcher paints a picture of CPSC as an agency of lofty ideals, crippled by a lack of political support, dwindling resources, inadequate scientific expertise and inadequate authority.  In the report’s executive summary, she writes

“CPSC’s inability to carry out its mandate with respect to simple, low-tech products such as Thomas the Tank Engine toy trains, Barbie dolls and Easy-Bake Ovens bodes poorly for its ability to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology. The agency lacks the budget, the statutory authority and the scientific expertise to ensure that the hundreds of nanoproducts now on the market, among them baby bottle nipples, infant teething rings, teddy bears, paints, waxes, kitchenware and appliances, are safe. This problem will only worsen as more sophisticated nanotechnology-based products begin to enter the consumer market.”

The critique is harsh—all the more so because CPSC staff are clearly trying hard to get their heads around the challenges that nanotechnology is presenting them with.  Yet according to Felcher, the problems lie not so much with the staff as with the agency’s lack of information, resources and authority.  To ensure CPSC is nano-ready (and more broadly, emerging technology-ready), she recommends that:

• The agency’s knowledge-base is built-up,
• that CPSC work closely with other health and safety agencies,
• that information on nano-products is solicited from companies,
• that a Chronic Health Advisory Panel is convened to evaluate potential risks associated with nano-products for children,
• that the agency appeal to industry to develop voluntary safety standards for children’s products,
• and that the US congress take action on the Consumer product Safety Act bill to increase CPSC’s authority to address products based on new and emerging technologies.

There’s a good chance that many of the allegedly nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market are harmless (or at least, mostly harmless).  But a combination of novel and sometimes unpredictable material behaviour, few checks and balances to use and an inadequately resourced and empowered regulator seems like a dangerous combination; when a potentially harmful nano-product does come along, there aren’t, it seems, many barriers to prevent problems from occurring.  

And we are still dealing with very simple nanotechnologies—nanoparticles of silver, titania and carbon in the main.  What happens when consumer product manufacturers start to use more complex nanotechnologies?

OK so nano-consumerism may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things.  But the impacts of nano-consumerism gone wrong could be far from inconsequential.  So if we want to see the less trivial products of nanotechnology—the renewable energy sources, the high performance batteries, the smart drugs—now might be a good time to make sure the first waves of products perform well without causing harm.

Now, back to that shoe de-whiffer—I think my “nano  silver far infrared  anti-odor healthy socks” need a little help…

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in August 2008

Read Thomas L. Friedman’s “The World is Flat” or Neal Stephenson’s “Cryptonomicon”, and you get a glimpse into how the hacker culture that emerged at the tail end of the twentieth century revolutionized the digital world.  Will a confluence of emerging technologies—including information tech, biotech, and nanotech—lead to a similar revolution in the biological world?

Behind every computer screen is a complexity of software and hardware that together create a virtual world in which many of us spend more time living out our lives than is probably healthy—whether crunching numbers, playing games or churning out our latest blog.  This world is built in part (some would say a large part) on the work of technically savvy individuals—hackers—who have learned the art of manipulating the fundamental building blocks of the digital world.  

According to that fount of all knowledge Wikipedia, a “computer hacker is a person who enjoys designing software and building programs with a sense for aesthetics and playful cleverness.”  A big attraction of hacking is the ability to change “reality” (albeit a digital reality) by manipulating the software (and hardware in the broadest interpretation of “hacker”) that defines it. And the factors that make this possible? Easy access to knowledge and tools, and the development of global grassroots networks for information sharing.

But here’s a question: what are the chances of a biology-based hacker culture arising; enticed by the lure of tinkering with biological codes that define living systems, rather than digital codes that govern digital systems?  The answer is that it is already here.  The “biohacking” culture is alive and kicking, and already pushing the boundaries of what is possible and acceptable. 

Reading through a just-released report on the social and ethical challenges of synthetic biology commissioned by the U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Synthetic Biology.  Social and Ethical Challenges.  PDF, 740 KB), I was particularly intrigued by a short section on what has been termed “garage biology.”  (For a succinct overview of the report , I would recommend Richard Jones’ recent blog entry at Soft Machines.)  On the subject of garage biology, authors Andrew Balmer and Paul Martin of the Institute for Science and Society at the University of Nottingham had this to say:

“As DNA sequencing becomes cheaper and quicker and second hand equipment becomes available on eBay the power to create synthetic sequences may be dispersed to many individuals and groups.  Biohackers have also become known by the portmanteau ‘biopunk’ (biotech punk), that has its origins as a science fiction genre.  The most recent, and significant addition to this movement has been the online publication of a ‘Primer for Synthetic Biology’, a manual, written in simple, non-technical language, for those wishing to engage themselves in some bio hacking.”

With my interest piqued, I went on-line to check out the “biopunk” community.  A quick search brought up this recent comment from a teenager on the biopunk.org website:

“A few weeks ago I had somebody in school complaining about her eating disorder, Ceiliacs disease or something, and how she can’t eaten certain foods because of it. She has mentioned this before, and frankly I was tired of it, so I spent just *20* minutes on the internet during my lunch period and found a cure hidden in the patent database, and then told her how to use http://e-oligos.com/ and thenhttp://biohack.sf.net/ and http://openwetware.org/ to get the materials she needs from http://labx.com/to implement the solution in some gastrointestinal bacteria and cure it herself. Problem freakin’ solved.” [http://www.biopunk.org/on-the-state-of-biodiy-biopunk-culture-t36.html]

I have no idea whether synthetic biology is as accessible to the masses as this comment would imply (I suspect not).  But clearly there is a growing culture of people interested in playing with genetic software and hardware in much the same way as conventional hackers play with computer software and hardware.  And this is being spurred on by increasingly easy access to tools and knowledge within a growing grassroots community.  

Additional parallels between digital and biological hacking abound.  For instance, one of the drivers behind the development of the digital world most of us now inhabit was the open source movement, providing open access to computer code on the understanding that hackers shared any improvements made to the code with the rest of the world.  Similar movements are growing up around synthetic biology, with the significant difference being that the “code” is now biological.  A good example is the BioBricks Foundation that is developing an open source registry of standard biological parts that can be used to “program living organisms in the same way a computer scientist can program a computer.”

While only time will tell whether the biopunk movement will have the same impact on synbio as the hacker culture had on the digital world (and there are plenty of skeptics out there who are doubtful), the idea of “hacking biology” appeals to plenty of people.  Especially where it brings within their grasp tools that enable engineering-based concepts to be applied to biological systems.  Drew Endy—a leading proponent of synthetic biology—had this to say in a recent interview:

“Programming DNA is more cool, it’s more appealing, it’s more powerful than silicon. You have an actual living, reproducing machine; it’s nanotechnology that works. It’s not some Drexlarian (Eric Drexler) fantasy. And we get to program it. And it’s actually a pretty cheap technology. You don’t need a FAB Lab like you need for silicon wafers. You grow some stuff up in sugar water with a little bit of nutrients. My read on the world is that there is tremendous pressure that’s just started to be revealed around what heretofore has been extraordinarily limited access to biotechnology.” [Edge, issue 237, February 19 2008]

While the debate surrounding the social and ethical development and use of synthetic biology tends to focus on issues such as bioterrorism, uncontrolled releases, global justice and the creation of “artificial life,” it is quite possible that a successful biopunk movement will change the context within which this debate is conducted. How do you establish a framework for socially and ethically responsible development when the person you need to reach is an adolescent teenager constructing new biological code in their basement?  

This is a major challenge to the development of safe and societally accepted synthetic biology.  Biological hacking may never develop on the scale of computer hacking —“life” might shatter our hubris by turning out to be more complex than anyone imagined.  But I do not think we can afford to be complacent here.  The four recommendations made in the BBSRC report will definitely help pave the way towards socially and ethically responsible synthetic biology: recognizing the importance of maintaining public legitimacy and support; ensuring the scientific community engage with society on the impacts of their work; pursuing partnerships with civil society groups, social scientists and ethicists; and putting in place a robust governance framework before synthetic biology applications are realized.  However, I suspect that these are just the first steps in a long process to ensure society as a whole takes responsibility for developing and using an increasing level of control over the basic building blocks of life wisely.

As a final thought, when a hacker causes the digital reality in their computer to malfunction through tinkering, they can simply reboot and start again.  It might not be so simple when hacking life itself.  This may be a flawed analogy, but it is probably something the new socioethics of synbio should address if serious mis-steps are to be avoided.

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in June 2008

“Nanotechnology” as an overarching concept is great for sweeping statements and sound bites, but falls short when it comes to real-world decision-making.  As nanoscale technologies are increasingly used in everything from antimicrobial socks to anti-cancer drugs, perhaps its time to rethink how we talk about the myriad diverse technologies that fall, slip or are forcibly squeezed under this all-encompassing banner.

At last year’s Bernstein Symposium, I had the pleasure of listening to National Public Radio science journalist Richard Harris talking about the latest greatest technology-not nanotechnology, but yellowtechnology.  A rather liberal re-interpretation of Richard’s lecture goes something like this: 

“Yellowtechnology is the next technological revolution-if you think biotechnology and information technology are cool, just wait until you see what yellowtech can do.  Yellow makes everything faster; smarter; hotter.  Want more powerful power tools?  Just add yellow.  Got to have a faster, sleeker sports car?  Make it yellow.  And everyone knows that yellow is the surest route to making good food great-from M&M’s to mustard.  

“The beauty of yellowtech is that it reflects what nature has been doing for millennia.  Daffodils, the sun, canaries-everywhere you look, the natural world is exploiting yellowtech.  In developing this new technology we are simply treading in the footsteps of mother nature, and producing new products that are environmentally friendly to their core.  In the twenty first century, yellow is the new green.

“But care is needed-who hasn’t experienced the dark side of a carelessly discarded banana skin? Yellowtech may be the next best thing, but we need to learn how to use it responsibly.  We need new research to discover where yellow might be harmful.  We need regulations to ensure safe use.  And we need transparency so we know where yellow is being used, and what the consequences might be.  Is your yellow rubber duck safe? If not, how would you know?”

[long pause]

“I’m sorry what was that?  I was supposed to be talking about nanotechnology, not yellowtechnology?  OK, let’s start again…

“Nanotechnology is the next technological revolution-if you thought we could change the world with biotechnology and information technology, just wait until you see what nanotech can do…”

The above delivery is inspired by rather than transcribed from Richard’s lecture (A video of the original lecture can be viewed from here), but it does encapsulate a critical point-a grand idea that is sufficiently broad can be used-or abused-to almost any purpose, and in the end becomes meaningless.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has unquestionably stimulated much new science and technology around the world, and has energized the quest to develop scientific knowledge targeted at improving quality of life.  Yet when it comes to identifying its benefits, addressing its risks and overseeing its safe use, it is as slippery (and some would argue as meaningless) a concept as yellowtechnology.  

Under this grand idea, there is the temptation to redefine the most trivial advances as “nanotechnology” in order to emphasize the scale and magnitude of the new technological revolution. But there is also the lure of mixing and matching risks-either to over-stress the dangers of the new technology, or to justify a ragbag of studies as a coherent risk research strategy.  And so it becomes conceivable that consumers might reject new technologies for energy harvesting because a nanotech-based toothpaste gets a bad rap (a hypothetical example), or a multi-million dollar materials characterization facility is justified on the grounds of what it might hypothetically contribute to preventing occupational exposures.

As businesses, governments and consumers are faced with making increasingly sophisticated decisions on how nanotechnology is and is not used, it becomes more important to differentiate between the grand idea, and the products and processes it leads to.  

This process of “decoupling” is the only way of ensuring intelligent and informed conversations about product-specific benefits and risks.  

By decoupling different expressions of nanotechnology from the overarching concept, it becomes possible to make informed decisions on the resulting nanotechnologies, rather than the idea of nanotechnology.  Focusing on the products of the grand idea, rather than the idea itself, regulators can begin to talk about how a specific substance (like nanoscale silver) might present new challenges, without being sidetracked by other unrelated nanomaterials. Or consumers can begin to have informed conversations about the pros and cons of certain products-say, nanoscale electronics-without being baffled by claims and counter-claims associated with unrelated “nanotech” products.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has taken such firm root around the world that decoupling it into its component technologies and products will not be easy.  But if we are to avoid nanotechnology becoming as farcical asyellowtechnology, it’s something we need to do-the sooner the better.

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in May 2008

If you want proof that nano is mainstream, just pick up the U.S. May edition of fashion magazine “Elle.”   Sharing cover-space with Madonna is the latest article on nanotech and the beauty business.

Elle might not be your first choice of reading for cutting edge science, but Joanne Chen’s article “Small Wonders” is no slouch when it comes to conveying complex ideas in digestible bites.  Using beauty products as examples (from hair dryers to conditioners to anti-wrinkle cream), Chen takes the reader on a journey through the wonders and worries of nano.   As an exercise in making nanotechnology accessible, the article is a must-read.  

On the benefits of smallness:  

“Once downsized, common materials can take on almost supernatural powers.  Nanogold transforms into a catalytic agent and carbon, Clark Kent-like, suddenly acquires strength 100 times that of steel.”   

And on nanoscale liposomes: 

“If your liposome is your chunky, clunky well-loved first generation iPod, a nanosome is an nth-generation iPod, the hearing-aid size one that Steve Jobs will persuade you to buy in a few years. … But just as that little iPod of the future will inevitably get lost at the bottom of your F/W 2010 Balenciaga Giant purse, nanosomes could shimmy through the dermis, sliding into nerve endings, even into the blood cells, surfing their way through the circulatory system.”

Some dismiss nano-consumer products as trivial; even flippant. But for most people, this is where they will first encounter nanotechnology.  And it is these products that will mould their perceptions and opinions.  Pick up a nano-hair dryer that really works, and you have a nano-advocate.  But slap on a nano-cream that leaves you with nothing but worries, and nano-doubts begin to set in.  

These products are increasing rapidly in numbers and diversity—as Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies director David Rejeski noted while showing U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair John Kerry a locally-purchased tube of nano-silver toothpaste yesterday.  The current tally of allegedly nano-enabled consumer products in the on-line PEN inventory is over 600; and these are just the tip of the iceberg.  Rejeski’s Ace Silver Plus Nano Silver Toothpaste is typical of many entries—using nanotech to “improve” an existing product, but with apparently little attention paid to whether the use is a good idea.

And this raises serious questions in the minds of consumers, regulators and many nanotech businesses.  What safeguards are there to ensure the nano-innovator next door (or South Korea in the case of the toothpaste) is asking the right questions about avoiding adverse impacts?  Not a lot is the answer.  Many nanotechnology industries are still floundering in a sea of uncertainty when it comes to ensuring product safety.  

Matthew Nordan, president of Lux Research, summed it up in testimony submitted to yesterday’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing: 

“Seven years after the NNI’s launch, it’s still unclear to most commercial entities when and how the materials they work with will be treated under the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act – forming a real commercialization gating factor.” [written testimony available here.  PDF, 192 KB]

Such uncertainty is bad for business, bad for consumers, and ultimately bad for nanotechnology.

As nanotechnology begins to rub shoulders with pop culture and awareness of its existence grows, more and more people will be asking what it can do for them, and what the down sides are. Yesterday’s hearing (focused on the reauthorization of the U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D act) asked what is needed to ensure the commercial success of nanotechnology.  And the answers came through loud and clear—understand and avoid risks ahead of the game, ensure transparency, and engage people.  

This month in Elle, nanotechnology just happened to be in the right place at the right time as it shared the cover with Madonna.  But awareness is definitely growing.  And as it does, people will want to know whether it is safe and effective.  

The question is, will we have the answers?  

___________________________________ 

Trivia

• Madonna’s 1991 film “Truth or Dare”, documenting her Blond Ambition tour, was released as “In Bed With Madonna” in the UK and Australia.

• In 2004, nanotech commentator and fellow blogger Howard Lovy drew a link between Madonna and nanotechnology in the Salon article Nanotech angels.

• I am not a Madonna fan

Here’s a small diversion for a slow Sunday afternoon:  Take sixty jellybeans and ninety cocktail sticks, and try to construct a model of a buckyball—a carbon-60 molecule.  It’s tricky, but not impossible.

Constructing a candy buckminster fullerene is one of ten nano “experiments” in a new nanotechnology education kit from nanobits. Designed to enthuse and inform kids in school and at home about nanotechnology, the nanobits kit grew out of Nanovic (Nanotechnology Victoria Ltd.)—an Australian initiative to translate nanotechnology research into commercial applications.

Having seen the kit a couple of times while visiting Australia, I was keen to get my hands on one and take it for a test run (or at least, co-opt my kids into yet another “socio-nano experiment”).  And thanks to the generosity of Nanovic, and Mathew Dipnall at nanobits, a few weeks ago my wish came true.

On the outside, the nanobits kit looks like an upmarket children’s science kit.  The container is modelled on a carbon nanotube—a short cylinder truncated by fullerene-like ends. Open it up, and all the elements of an introduction to nanotechnology spill out—an instruction book complete with interesting facts, explanations and web links; memory-metal wire; a wad of nano-treated fabrics; a piece of glass with a hydrophobic coating; and a few other bits and pieces.  The true nanotech content of the kit’s components might be limited, but the listed experiments also use common household items to demonstrate different aspects of nanotechnology.

True to form, I lost no time setting my two children to work on the kit.  You can see the results of their first foray on YouTube, in the debut of “Nanobusters:”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4xwlDSBQg]

In homage to the “nano-tie” video they put together back in 2006, the two of them carried out a short version of the “try to stain nano-treated fabrics” experiment; dipping various supplied fabrics in soy sauce, then washing them in clean water.  While I think there is still room for improvement in the experiment as described in the kit, the exercise was fun for the two children, it got them thinking about what nanotech can do, and there’s a possibility they even learned something.

Overall, this is an engaging kit.  Perhaps more geared toward classes of school kids and older children, it nevertheless has enough appeal to interest home experimenters.  It could be improved with the inclusion of more hands-on nano stuff, but I was impressed by the use of everyday objects to demonstrate nanotechnology in the handbook.  For instance, gelatine is used to demonstrate sol-gels; crushed ice-cubes containing bicarbonate of soda are used to show how smaller particles can be more reactive; and egg-yolk and oil help to explore self-assembling membranes.

The handbook also delves into broader issues—biomedical nanotechnology, bio-mimicry and even nano-ethics.

With the most recent poll supported by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies indicating 70% percent of people in the U.S. know little or nothing of nanotechnology (the percentage is similar elsewhere), new approaches to getting the word out are clearly needed—especially if the public and policy makers alike are to make informed decisions on emerging nanotech applications.  While the nanobits kit is focused on children—and probably those with some interest in science to start with—it is a step in the right direction, and a great resource for introducing the next generation to nanotechnology in a fun and accessible way.

Perhaps my biggest concern is the price—at AU$94.30, it will be beyond the reach of many potential users.  But bring the price down to around $30, and you have a kit that would compete favourably with the best of the science kits for kids currently available.

And the jellybean buckyball?  I’m pleased to say that in the first round of the “Great Candy Buckyball Challenge” in our household, I won hands down.  But I suspect the victory will not be long lived.  Now if only I could find a superior jellybean, with a better stiffness-to-weight ratio…

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in April 2008

The small American town of Sunnyville is a town in crisis.  Against a backdrop of job losses that have decimated the local community, citizens are struggling to decide whether to welcome two major nanotech-enabled industries into the town, or whether to reject them because the new technology might create more problems than it solves.

As if this wasn’t enough, it has just come to light that local company “Happy Home Paint” has been contaminating a neighborhood beauty spot with toxic chemicals for years, and the only way of cleaning the area without destroying it is by using a developmental nanoparticle-based technology.

Will nanotechnology revitalize this town, or will it end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back?  The locals are having a tough time deciding.

The scenario is fictitious (you might have guessed), but the issues echo real-life hopes and concerns over nanotechnology.  Sunnyville stars in “Nanotechnology: Power of Small”—a major new TV series exploring the complex interplay between nanotechnology and society.* I had the dubious pleasure of participating in the third program of the series, addressing environmental issues.

Each program in “Power of Small” uses hypothetical scenarios to push an unprepared and unscripted panel of “experts” to address complex issues.  Imagine on-the-fly role-playing in front of a live audience while you are being filmed for later humiliation, and you begin to get the idea.

Actually—and to my surprise—the end result is an entertaining and rather sophisticated assessment of complex issues, where there are no clear right and wrong answers.  I was one of twelve on a panel working through decisions facing the fictional town of Sunnyville.  With me were leading experts from the worlds of science, law industry, journalism, government and environmental advocacy; all grappling with a plethora of tough issues under the guiding hand of moderator John Hockenberry.

In the course of filming we considered the merits of allowing the nanotech company “Solar Synergies” to build a nano solar panel plant in the town; worried over the covert use of nanotechnology by the food producer “Admiral Chicken” to make better tasting, longer-lasting products; and agonized over the use of nanotech to clean up after local polluter “Happy Home Paint.”  As you can imagine, the discussions were spirited at times!

While it could be argued that the first major American TV series addressing nanotechnology might have been better focusing on science, “Power of Small” achieves something rather important—it eloquently demonstrates the need for broad engagement throughout society, if complex decisions on emerging nanotechnologies are to be made.

In each of the programs (dealing respectively with surveillance and privacy, health, and the environment), the issues raised have no clear-cut answers.  And as a result, the decision-making process rests on the shoulders of people who stand to gain or loose by the technology.

Of course, if a diverse bunch of people are going to be involved in deciding the course of nanotechnology, it’s preferable that they know at least something of the science—so maybe it is time for some glossy big-budget nanotech science programming, now “Power of Small” has shown us how tough the societal debates are going to be.

(And just for the record; daunting though the process was, the pleasure of participating in “Power of Small” and seeing such a polished final product was far from “dubious”!)

____________________________________

*“Power of Small” premiers at an event hosted by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the National Science Foundation in Washington DC, on 2nd April 2008.  The series of three programs is also viewable on the internet at www.powerofsmall.com.

“Power of Small” is part of the Fred Friendly Seminars series of programs.

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in March 2008

On March 18th, the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke died in his home in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.  A master developer and assembler of ideas, Clarke will be remembered fondly by many for igniting their enthusiasm for science, and how it might be used to better our lives.  His passing leaves a hole in the ranks of science heroes who inspire us to look beyond the obvious, and question the unquestionable.

My early childhood was full of the stories of Clarke, Asimov and others, and without a doubt these writers set me on a path to exploring how the world works and how we can extend our reach with this knowledge.  Clarke had the knack of taking what was known, and pushing it that little bit further into the realms of the “what if…?”.  In doing so, he was the perfect foil to the established scientific community; asking the questions others shied away from and stimulating the process of discovery and development afresh.  But he also excelled at raising scientific consciousness across the board, and sowing the seeds of effective and informed science engagement.

Ironically, my first exposure to the possibilities of nanotechnology came through the one novel of Clarke’s that I struggled with first time round. The Fountains of Paradise (1979) revolves around construction of the first elevator to space.  In the book, “hyperfilaments” of diamond crystal are used to create a tether that is both strong and light enough to tether a satellite in geostationary orbit to the earth.  Nearly thirty years later, Clarke’s vision is closer than ever to becoming a reality.  The big difference between the book and current research: his fictional hyperfilament has been replaced by carbon nanotubes—same atoms, similar properties, just in a slightly different configuration.

Recently re-reading The Fountains of Paradise, I understood why I struggled with it as a young teenager.  The novel is an exploration of the interface between society and technology, and how each influences the other; not the type of stuff that was grabbing my attention at the time.  But with the advantage of years and a professional interest in nanotechnology, science and society, Clarke’s writing now comes across as both insightful and visionary.  Clarke understood the science, but wasn’t constrained by scientific conservatism.  More importantly, he realized that science and technology happen within a social context; and that the successful generation and use of new knowledge must rely on scientific literacy and public engagement.

Clarke excelled in increasing people’s interest in and understanding of science, and laying the grounds for informed science engagement—demonstrating unequivocally that fiction is a powerful illuminator of truths in the world of facts.  He will be sorely missed in a society that is increasingly reliant on technologies to solve new and old challenges—including nanotechnology.  Who now will inspire us to fully engage in the opportunities and challenges that twenty first century science and technology promises?

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in March 2008

Can current approaches to doing science sustain us over the next one hundred years?  An increasing reliance on technological fixes to global challenges — including nanotechnology — demands a radical rethink of how we use science in the service of society.

Over the next century we will perhaps be facing the greatest challenge in the history of humanity: sustaining six billion plus people on a planet where natural resources are running scarce and our every action results in a palpable environmental reaction.  Progress towards sustainability will only come through integrating relevant science with socially-responsible decision making.  Yet the science policy dogmas of the 20th century may be stretched to breaking point in the face of 21st century challenges.

And these challenges are immense. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently published 14 “grand challenges for engineering” — the culmination of a year-long project exploring and reviewing the greatest technological challenges facing us in the 21st century.  At the top of the list is development of economical solar energy and fusion-energy, followed by crafting carbon sequestration methods, improving access to clean water, creating improved medicines, preventing nuclear terror, and eight other pressing needs.  The challenges are a stark reminder of the limitations of our current capabilities, and what needs to change if we are to continue growing as a society in harmony with our surroundings.

The solutions to many of these challenges will come from emerging areas of science and technology that include nanotechnology, as well as areas such as synthetic biology and cognitive science — the science of how we use our mind to think and learn.  These are not the physics, chemistry and biology of 20th century science.  Rather, they represent a blurring of the boundaries between conventional disciplines — a mixing-up of ideas and concepts that has the potential to stimulate tremendous innovation.

For example, nanotechnology combines elements of physics and chemistry to find new solutions to old problems.  Cheap, efficient solar cells and access to clean water are just two areas that this emerging technology is showing promise in.  But combine the ideas of nanotechnology with molecular biology and you open the door to playing with the building blocks of life itself — DNA.  Imagine what we could achieve by inventing new organisms that harvest energy, clean up pollution, and build new materials atom by atom.  Sounds like science fiction, but simple nanotechnologies are already being used in daily life; and synthetic biology is rapidly becoming a reality, with the first artificially constructed bacterium genome reported in January of this year.

In addressing the major challenges of the 21st century, it is the convergence of these new technologies that will deliver the solutions.  But policymakers, scientists and engineers will only be able to transform the new knowledge from research to practice if strong policies and frameworks are in place to support and nurture these emerging technologies. 20th century science and technology thrived on the twin dogmas of partitioned disciplines and knowledge diffusion.  Vast investment in basic research was thought to lead — eventually — to technological solutions; a Darwinian natural selection of the best ideas generated by self-absorbed researchers.  And while “interdisciplinary collaboration” was the mantra of many a grant proposal, few ventured far from the comfort of their particular disciplinary caste.

But if 21st century solutions are to be found to 21st century challenges, we need a new way of doing science.  This “smart science” must train future practitioners to work across conventional boundaries and remove the barriers to interdisciplinary research that continue to persist.  It must be socially relevant.  And it must engage citizens at every level — with the recognition that scientists need to be socially literate, as much as citizens need to be scientifically literate.

It is no exaggeration to say the state of the world our children’s children inherit will depend on the choices we make now, and one of the critical choices will be how we will develop and use science in the service of society. As we approach the 2008 U.S. presidential election, there is a ground-swell within the American scientific community in support of a presidential science debate.  While the idea of politicians talking science might have minority appeal, the consequences of bad science policy will have a major impact — and one that will be felt much sooner than the end of the century or even the end of the next term of office.

The end of the 21st century might look a long way off.  But it is the choices we make now that will determine the consequences our grandchildren and their children are faced with.  20th century approaches to science got us a long way, but they lack what it takes to address the challenges now facing us.  Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies that hold the seeds of future will not and cannot be sustained by 20th century thinking.  Instead, we need a 21st century approach to science to get us through the next one hundred years — and we need it sooner rather than later.

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in March 2008