It’s barely a month since Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place” and already there has been widespread discussion over what this rightful place might be—spurred on in no small part by science and technology provisions in the recently passed stimulus bill.  Not surprisingly, the role science should play in 21st century society has been an important part of this discussion.  And one of the more insightful pieces has come from Harvard professor Sheila Jasanoff, writing for Seed Magazine…

I last wrote about Jasanoff’s work in December last year, anticipating a sharp change in science policy direction with the incoming administration.  “A “manifesto” for socially-relevant science and technology” revisits her 2003 paper “Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing Science,” published in the journal Minerva (and downloadable here).  In this seminal paper, Jasanoff explored new approaches to decision-making that “seek to integrate the ‘can-do’ orientation of science and engineering with the ‘should-do’ questions of ethical and political analysis.”  Her work led to the concept of technologies of humility—“social technologies” developed around a framework that poses “the questions we should ask of almost every human enterprise that intends to alter society: what is the purpose; who will be hurt; who benefits; and how can we know?”

While Jasanoff’s work on technologies of humility was highly influential amongst social scientists—more so in Europe than the US it must be said—it gained very limited traction in US policy making.  This was undoubtedly due in part to political ideologies in vogue at the time.  But it probably wasn’t helped by the scholarly tone of the work, which would have appealed to academics more than policy makers.

However, six years on, and things have changed—sound science and technology policy are back in fashion, Jasanoff’s ideas have had time to mature, and this time round she’s writing for a broader audience in a more accessible format.

“The Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy,” published February 17 on the Seed Magazine website, presents a clear vision of the interplay between science and society, and the need to understand and manage the relationship between the two if real progress is to be made.  It’s a challenging piece, and will no doubt rub more than a few readers up the wrong way.  Indeed, Jasanoff acknowledges that the questions she raises “will raise hackles and temperatures because they are both hard and pervasive.”  But she makes it clear that, now more than ever, tough and even uncomfortable questions will need to be grappled with if an appropriate ad productive relationship between science and society is to be reached.

Jasanoff starts by recognizing the pervasive and essential presence of science and technology in society, and applauds Obama’s commitment to science.  But she cautions,

“many have interpreted [the new administration’s] moves as welcome signs of Washington’s renewed respect for science, and they are right to do so.  But if understanding stops there, then we’re in trouble.  For the restorative steps Obama has taken vis-à-vis science are praiseworthy not so much because they respect science as because they respect the grand institutions of democracy.”

A problem here, Jasanoff suggests, is that the tendencies of modern science do not always converge with the aims of democracy.  And as a result,

“simply throwing more money at science, or even listening to the best-qualified scientists for policy advice, may not ensure that research and development are conducted for the public good.”

This is strong stuff, but important nevertheless.  Interestingly, Jasanoff is particularly concerned with how closely science has become linked to special economic and political interests.  This is somewhat complex ground, as high-level science policies in the US have favored investigator-drive “basic research” for some time, on the (outmoded) assumption that knowledge generation will naturally trickle down to innovation.  Yet the reality is that scientific progress is directed by various drivers and motivators—economic return being amongst them—and in the absence of a clear research and development strategy, these can seriously undermine both the generation of knowledge for its own sake, and the generation and use of strategically relevant knowledge.  And in this context, the conclusion Jasanoff draws is spot on—that we need a carefully balanced portfolio of public science, which combines curiosity-driven research with mission-driven studies.

Moving through the need to revise current intellectual property laws and practices and open up the public debate on science and society, Jasanoff goes on to challenge the role of science as “speaking truth to power” in society.  Instead, she suggests that

“rather than claiming the rarely attainable high ground of truth, scientific advice should own up to uncertainty and ignorance, exercise ethical as well as epistemic judgment, and ensure as far as possible that society’s needs drive advances in knowledge instead of presuming to lead society.”

This is classic Jasanoff, and reflects much of her thinking on science, society and humility.  It’s a bold statement of how we should be thinking about the relationship between science and society.  But it is also a challenging one.  Jasanoff continues,

“Such humility requires experts to sometimes bow to others who are less technically informed, but subordinating expert preference to democratic priorities may be a tough act.  The roots of resistance run deep.  They are grounded partly in the innocent, wishful, antiquated notion that science would be apolitical if only it could be left alone.”

But of course the irony here is that, as Jasanoff points out, science neither wants to or can be left out of the political process.  If you want proof of this, just check out the science lobby in Washington DC!  And as she goes on to argue, simplistic dichotomies between science and technology, and how they are used, have little place in the 21st century.  Instead, a rather more clear understanding of what it means to scientific and technological development to democratic ends is needed.

The way forward, argues Jasanoff, is through a “Second Enlightenment”

“Finding the rightful place for science … demands a Second Enlightenment.  This time, we do not need to overthrow the false gods of superstition or the self-serving autocracies that thrive by creating their own reality.  This time, like the fox of Greek philosophy, we already know a great many things about how to examine life, harness energy, measure society, create incentives, and use statistical evidence to support rational public decisions. Nor should we hesitate to learn more.  But do we, like the hedgehog, also know the big things?  What makes for human happiness?  Which manipulations of nature are we too ignorant of to safely undertake?  When might attempts to enhance human capabilities bump against deeply held beliefs about the value of being human?”

The Second Enlightenment must be, according to Jasanoff, the enlightenment of modesty; based on the skeptical, questioning virtues of an experimental turn of mind, and accepting that truth is provisional, that questioning of experts should be encouraged, and that steps forward may need corrective steps back.

Here, she re-articulates the ideas behind the notion of technologies of humility, but in a manner that is much more accessible and compelling than in the 2003 paper.

Jasanoff’s Seed essay is an important contribution to the debate on how the relationship between science and society needs to be rethought and developed.  It is challenging.  It is controversial.  And I’m sure many readers will disagree with parts of it at least.  But it is insightful, and raises ideas that many will find attractive.

More importantly, it puts us on a route to integrating science into society in a way that will benefit all in the long turn.  Whether we end up with a Second Enlightenment or not, Jasanoff’s ideas should be listened to carefully and taken seriously.

(And just in case you are wondering what all this has to do with foxes and hedgehogs, you can reach intermediate enlightenment here ☺)

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/2007/11/11/nanotechnologies-of-humility/ http://2020science.org/2007/11/11/nanotechnologies-of-humility/#comments Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:26:42 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.wordpress.com/?p=104

Some nanotechnology events should come with a health warning, perhaps along the lines of: “This meeting could seriously alter your perspective”.  Because nanotechnology crosses such diverse areas of interest and expertise, there is a danger of being exposed to ideas that are radically different from your own.  And where exposure occurs, “infection” becomes an issue.

I think I missed the “interdisciplinary inoculation” while I was a kid—there must be one, because I have colleagues who participate in interdisciplinary meetings, and come away unaffected.  But I seem to be particularly susceptible to “interdisciplinary infection”.

Take this last week.  I was enticed over to San Francisco to meet with a group of “informal science educators” (first sign of infection—an expanding jargon vocabulary)—a group of “radical” enthusiasts dedicated to engaging people in science in every imaginable way. This was the annual meeting of the Nanotechnology Informal Science Education (NISE) network in the US—a National Science Foundation-funded network of science museums and researchers, working to increase nanotechnology awareness, knowledge and engagement through all sectors of society.

Leaving the meeting (which in the interests of full disclosure, I should note was the most enjoyable nano-meeting I have been to in a long time), I found a new phrase had crept into my psyche that I just couldn’t shake off—“technologies of humility”.  Resigned to the consequences of mixing with such a diverse crowd, I started digging around to find out more about this idea.

The concept of “technologies of humility” has its origins in the work of Sheila Jasanoff [1, 2].  Jasanoff argues that

“governments should reconsider existing relations among decision-makers, experts, and citizens in the management of technology. Policy-makers need a set of ‘technologies of humility’ for systematically assessing the unknown and the uncertain.” [2]

In contrast, she describes the refinement of conventional (i.e. current) science and technology policy as “technologies of hubris”—policies crafted to reassure the public, and keep the wheels of science and industry turning.

Jasanoff’s arguments and use of language will be unfamiliar to many involved in the generation and use of scientific knowledge—her use of the word “technologies” for instance refers to the social and policy-based mechanisms of how science is done.  Yet her conclusions are clear—in today’s evolving society, we cannot continue to force new sciences and technologies into old ways of thinking.  The simplistic separation of research into basic and applied studies has dominated science policy for over half a century.  Yet according to Jasanoff, this model no longer works.  Instead, we need new approaches that acknowledge the partiality of modern science; that recognize the context within which research is conducted; and that respond to new ways of generating scientific knowledge.

Reading Jasanoff’s work, it strikes me that current nanotechnology development is underpinned—at least in part—by the technologies of hubris: Decision-influencing is dominated by an informed few; context-insensitive science policies are being pursued; and interactions with “the public” are frequently limited to a one-way “dialogue” of promotion.  In contrast, Jasanoff describes technologies of humility as

“methods, or better yet institutionalized habits of thought, that try to come to grips with the ragged fringes of human understanding – the unknown, the uncertain, the ambiguous, and the uncontrollable.” [2]

Given the limitations of science to foresee, predict and control the future, she argues for different forms of engagement between experts, decision-makers and the public to tackle complex issues—to use another jargon phrase, the social contract with science needs to be re-negotiated.  Intriguingly, as well as these technologies of humility covering formal ways in which all stakeholders can participate in the development and use of new developments like nanotechnology, Jasanoff also states the need for

“an intellectual environment in which citizens are encouraged to bring their knowledge and skills to bear on the resolution of common problems.” [2]

This surely highlights the importance of raising science awareness and engagement throughout society.  But it also suggests that everyone potentially touched in some way by nanotechnology has something of value to contribute to its development.

Whatever the future of nanotechnology, maybe we should be approaching it with humility rather than hubris as we strive to develop quality of life-improving technology innovations.  To twist an elegant concept rather tortuously, perhaps we need to think in terms of “nanotechnologies of humility”—being up front about uncertainties and mistakes, listening to and learning from the people that nanotechnologies touch, and ensuring someone is accountable for decisions that are being made.

Or maybe I just need to get that interdisciplinary inoculation jab.  After all, those science and policy leaders at the top know what they are doing… don’t they?

Postscript.

This is a very shallow discussion of how our understanding of the interplay between science and society is changing, and I would encourage you to explore Sheila Jasanoff’s work further.  I should also note that the person principally responsible for “infecting” me in this instance was Rick Borchelt, Director of Communications at the Genetics and Public Policy Center.  And finally, do check out the NISE Network website—they are doing some pretty cool stuff.

References

1.    Jasanoff, S. Nature 2007, 450, 33.
2.    Jasanoff, S. Minerva 2003, 41, 223-244.

________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in November 2007