It must be Nanotechnology Regulation week in Washington DC.  Yesterday, two federal agencies and the White House released documents that grapple with the effective regulation of products that depend on engineered nanomaterials.

In a joint memorandum, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative laid out Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision Making Concerning Regulations and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials.

On the same day, the US Environmental Protection Agency posted a prepublication notice on Policies Concerning Products Containing Nanoscale Materials.

And to cap it all, the US Food and Drug Administration released Draft Guidance for Industry on Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology.

A busy week for nanotechnology regulation!

White House Memo on Nanotechnology Regulation Policy Principles

The White House memorandum is the latest document to come out of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee – ETIPC for short.  In part, it is a response to the 2010 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and in particular the concern expressed by PCAST that

“In the absence of sound science on the safe use of nanomaterials and of technologies and products containing them, the chance of unintentionally harming people and the environment increases.  At the same time, uncertainty and speculation about potential risks threaten to undermine consumer and business confidence.”

Correspondingly, this is a memorandum that is heavily focused on science-driven regulation, and the avoidance of knee-jerk responses to speculative concerns.

Reading through it, a number of themes emerge, including:

• Existing regulatory frameworks provide a firm foundation for the oversight of nanomaterials, but there is a need to respond to new scientific evidence on potential risks, and to consider administrative and legal modifications to the regulatory landscape should the need arise.
• Regulatory action on nanomaterials should be based on scientific evidence of risk, and not on definitions of materials that do not necessarily reflect the evidence-based likelihood of a material causing harm.
• There should be no prior judgement on whether nanomaterials are intrinsically benign or harmful, in the absence of supporting scientific evidence.
• Transparency and communication are important to ensuring effective evidence-based regulation.

Overall, this is a strong set of policy principles that lays the groundwork for developing regulation that is grounded in science and not swayed by speculative whims, and yet is responsive and adaptive to emerging challenges.  Gratifyingly, the memorandum begins to touch on some of the concerns I have expressed previously about approaches to nanomaterial regulation that seem not to be evidence-based.  There is a reasonable chance that they will help move away from the dogma that engineered nanomaterials should be regulated separately because they are new, to a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to ensuring the safe use of increasingly sophisticated materials.  Where it perhaps lacks is in recognizing the importance of other factors in addition to science in crafting effective regulation, and in handling uncertainty in decision making.  But it is undoubtedly a move in the right direction.  The principles are listed at the end of this post.

EPA Draft Pesticides and Nanomaterials Policies

The second piece in this triumvirate is a prepublication version of a document from EPA that should appear in the Federal Register next week, titled “Pesticides; Policies Concerning Products Containing nanoscale Materials; Opportunities for Public Comment.”

As the title makes very clear, this is a statement from the EPA that is setting out draft policies for dealing with nanomaterials in pesticide products – materials such as nanoscale silver particles – and asking for public comment.  This is the latest iteration in a process that has been going on for some time to address the use of nanoscale silver as an antimicrobial agent, together with other antimicrobial, fungicidal and pesticide uses of nanomaterials.

The crux of the proposed policy is a requirement for manufacturers to let EPA know when a pesticide product contains an engineered nanomaterial – irrespective of whether it is an active or passive ingredient in the product. EPA acknowledges that the presence of a nanoscale material in a product does not necessarily indicate the possibility that it will exhibit new or unusual risks – but the agency intends to use this information as a trigger for a more thorough evaluation of products that might raise concerns.

This is a long and somewhat convoluted document, that spends some time outlining what the agency considers is an engineered nanomaterial, and reviewing nanomaterial hazard data.

Reading the document, EPA still seems somewhat tangled up with definitions of engineered nanomaterials. After outlining conventional attributes associated with engineered nanomaterials, including structures between ~1 – 100 nm and unique or novel properties, the document states

“These elements do not readily work in a regulatory context because of the high degree of subjectivity involved with interpreting such phrases as “unique or novel properties” or “manufactured or engineered to take advantage of these properties” Moreover the contribution of these subjective elements to risk has not been established.”

This aligns with where my own thinking has been moving in recent years.  Yet following this statement, the document reverts back to considering nanoparticles between 1 – 100 nm as the archetypal nanomaterial, and intimates “novel” properties such as “larger surface area per unit volume and/or quantum effects” as raising new risk concerns.

I also found the background information on potential hazards somewhat lopsided, as a litany of studies were cited that indicate a number of potential hazards associated with a range of materials, but without clear information on how this might translate to plausible and quantifiable risk.

At the end of the day, I found this to be a mixed bag of a document – some useful information and some evidence of new thinking, but all surrounded by a rather unfocused assessment.   However, it is a draft that has been put out for public comment, which means that there is an opportunity here to tighten it up considerably in the final version.

I must also add that I was impressed by the final section on Questions for Comment – here you will find a list of highly relevant questions that are the clearest indication in the document that EPA understands many of the critical issues here, and is genuinely looking for expert input to address them.

Interestingly though, the EPA document does not reference the White House memorandum on Policy Principles published at the same time – unlike my third and final document in this set from FDA.

FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Products and Nanotechnology

The FDA Guidance for Industry: Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology is a very different kettle of fish to the EPA document.  It is overtly responsive to the White House memo; it demonstrates a deep understanding of the issues surrounding nanotechnology and regulation; and it is mercifully concise.

To be fair, the scope of the draft guidance is limited to helping manufacturers understand how the agency is approaching nanotechnology-enabled products under their purview.  But this is something it does well.

One of the more significant aspects of the guidance is the discussion on regulatory definitions of nanomaterials.  Following a line of reasoning established some years ago, the agency focuses on material properties rather than rigid definitions:

“FDA has not to date established regulatory definitions of “nanotechnology,” “nanoscale” or related terms… Based on FDA’s current scientific and technical understanding of nanomaterials and their characteristics, FDA believes that evaluations of safety, effectiveness or public health impact of such products should consider the unique properties and behaviors that nanomaterials may exhibit”

Of course, this still begs the question “what is a nanomaterial in FDA’s eyes?”  The agency answer by stating:

At this time, when considering whether an FDA-regulated product contains nanomaterials or otherwise involves the application of nanotechnology, FDA will ask:

1. Whether an engineered material or end product has at least one dimension in the nanoscale range (approximately 1 nm to 100 nm); or
2. Whether an engineered material or end product exhibits properties or phenomena, including physical or chemical properties or biological effects, that are attributable to its dimension(s), even if these dimensions fall outside the nanoscale range, up to one micrometer.

The guidance goes on to state

“These considerations apply not only to new products, but also may apply when manufacturing changes alter the dimensions, properties, or effects of an FDA-regulated product or any of its components. Additionally, they are subject to change in the future as new information becomes available, and to refinement in future product-specific guidance documents.”

FDA is clearly aiming for responsive and adaptive regulation here.

Reading the first of the two criteria above and the associated justification in the guidance, I can’t help feeling that FDA is still trying to justify responding to sub-100 nm scale materials based on assumptions of risk rather than evidence.  But the second criteria is important, because it opens the door to considering physical form and structure as a factor in determining potential risk irrespective of scale – as long as a material can come into intimate biological contact with a person.  This is a significant move, as it supports evidence-based decision-making on materials and products under FDA’s jurisdiction, irrespective of what technological label is applied to them.

That said, there remains some confusion as to how this criteria will be applied, and the reasoning behind it. Clearly, there is an aim here to capture supra-100 nm materials that nevertheless exhibit biological behavior associated with a nanometer-scale structure – including agglomerates, coated materials and hierarchical structures.  Yet the criteria is also said to have been selected to “exclude macro-scaled materials that may have properties attributable to their dimension(s) but are not likely relevant to nanotechnology”.  This statement seems to hark back to an assumption that “nanotechnology” is something that needs to be regulated, rather than focusing on materials and products that run the risk of slipping through the regulatory net – no matter what they are called.

But like the EPA document, the FDA guidance is still in draft form, and open to public comment.  And so is still very much a work in progress.

Overall, all three of these documents seem to be heading in the right direction if evidence-based, responsive and responsible regulations are the end goal.  There is still a way to go for both FDA and EPA before regulatory policy escapes being mesmerized by “nanotechnology”. But with strong science-driven policy principles emerging from the White House, the odds of this occurring are looking decidedly more healthy.

_____________

While House Policy Principles for the U.S. decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of nanotechnology and Nanomaterials:

In addressing issues raised by nanomaterials, agencies will adhere to the Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies. Specifically, to the extent permitted by law, Federal agencies will:

• To ensure scientific integrity, base their decisions on the best available scientific evidence, separating purely scientific judgments from judgments of policy to the extent feasible;
• Seek and develop adequate information with respect to the potential effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment and take into account new knowledge when it becomes available;
• To the extent feasible and subject to valid constraints (involving, for example, national security and confidential business information), develop relevant information in an open and transparent manner, with ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement and public participation;
• Actively communicate information to the public regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with specific uses ofnanomate rials;
• Base their decisions on an awareness of the potential benefits and the potential costs of such regulation and oversight, including recognition of the role of limited information and risk in decision making;
• To the extent practicable, provide sufficient flexibility in their oversight and regulation to accommodate new evidence and learning on nanomaterials;
• Consistent with current statutes and regulations, strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and risk management across the Federal Government, using standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits and manage risks, considering safety, health and environmental impacts, and exposure mitigation;
• Mandate risk management actions appropriate to, and commensurate with, the degree of risk identified in an assessment.
• Seek to coordinate with one another, with state authorities, and with stakeholders to address the breadth of issues, including health and safety, economic, environmental, and ethical issues (where applicable) associated with nanomaterials; and
• Encourage coordinated and collaborative research across the international community and clearly communicate the regulatory approaches and understanding of the United States to other nations.

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog:

Back in 2007 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a set of “Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health and Safety Oversight” (no longer available on the OSTP website it seems, but you can read them in this Nanowerk article). At the time, I was less than enamored with the “don’t mess with business” tone of the principles. So I was particularly interested to read what the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) had to say on a very similar issue last month.

ETIPC was formed last year, and consists of assistant secretary-level representation from about twenty federal agencies. From the White House blog, the group is

…part of an effort to give special attention to technologies so new—such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology—that their policy implications are still being gauged. Created jointly by OSTP, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the ETIPC consists of assistant secretary-level representatives from about 20 Federal agencies.

The same post goes on to explain that

Emerging technologies promise to have significant scientific, economic, and perhaps societal impacts because of their potential to revolutionize fields as varied as materials science, electronics, medicine, communications, agriculture, and energy. Rapid scientific and technological advances in these fields are resulting in a variety of new products and processes with unique and transformational characteristics. But full realization of the economic and public benefits of these applications will require open consideration of policy questions with the full range of stakeholders, including governments, industry, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the public.

The first publicly released outcomes of ETIPC were released last month. On March 11 2011, John Holdren (Director of OSTP and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology), Cass Sunstein (Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget) and Islam Siddiqui (Chief Agricultural Negotiator, United States Trade Representative) issued a joint memorandum on Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies, developed by ETIPC.

These are consistent with the President’s Executive Order 13563 (issued on January 18 2011) on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. They also include much of the same language of the 2007 principles. But the tone and emphasis are markedly different.

The memorandum starts by noting that

Innovation with respect to emerging technologies — such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering, among others — requires not only coordinated research and development but also appropriate and balanced oversight.

It then frames the issues at stake by stating:

We share a fundamental desire for regulation and oversight that ensure the fulfillment of legitimate objectives such as the protection of safety, health, and the environment. Regulation and oversight should avoid unjustifiably inhibiting innovation, stigmatizing new technologies, or creating trade barriers.

This is in stark contrast to the 2007 principles, which have a much stronger primary focus on not intrfereing with business and innovation.

The principles follow up this focus on safety, health and the environment with an emphasis on science-based decision-making, public participation, and flexibility. These reflect emerging thinking on the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies, and appear to offer a firm foundation for moving forward.

However, reading the principles (which are included below) I do have a couple of concerns.

The first is that these principles are extremely general. While establishing laudable objectives such as basing regulation on scientific evidence, engaging stakeholders in the process of developing regulation, balancing the costs and benefits of regulations and ensuring regulatory flexibility, they lack the details which would transform them from a set of nice ideas to something that has impact. This is understandable in a document of this type, but it would be good to see a move toward actionable recommendations coming out of this group.

I’m also concerned that some of the principles hint at less than innovative thinking to address the safe and sustainable development of technology innovation. For instance, while the emphasis on public participation is welcome, the principles are written in terms of modes of public consultation that rarely allow engagement with and input from citizens as opposed to mobilized interest groups. Rather than supporting the idea that posting details of public meetings and consultation periods in the Federal Register constitutes public participation, (it doesn’t), it would be good to see some innovative thinking on what true engagement means in terms of developing effective regulations for emerging technologies.

I am also unsure what “Risk assessment should be distinguished from risk management” means – especially when risk experts are beginning to explore more integrative approaches to risk assessment and management as a way of addressing complex and emerging issues.

But these concerns aside, there is a lot to applaud here. In particular, the combination of science-driven, participatory and flexible approaches to emerging technologies regulation should lay the groundwork for approaches to oversight that both protect people and the environment, and support technology innovation.

It is also worth noting that the principles align closely with the University of Michigan Risk Science Center’s vision of evidence-informed and socially-responsive action on human health risks. And they set the scene rather well for this September’s Risk Science Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

So although there is still a long way to go before technology innovation is accompanied by innovations in governance that will support rather than hinder its safe and sustainable development, these principles are an important step toward the federal government coordinating approaches to ensuring emerging technologies and emergent risks are regulated effectively.

From the memorandum:

…the following principles, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and discussed and approved by the ETIPC, should be respected to the extent permitted by law:

• Scientific Integrity: Federal regulation and oversight of emerging technologies should be based on the best available scientific evidence. Adequate information should be sought and developed, and new knowledge should be taken into account when it becomes available. To the extent feasible, purely scientific judgments should be separated from judgments of policy.
• Public Participation: To the extent feasible and subject to valid constraints (involving, for example, national security and confidential business information), relevant information should be developed with ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement and public participation. Public participation is important for promoting accountability, for improving decisions, for increasing trust, and for ensuring that officials have access to widely dispersed information.
• Communication: The Federal Government should actively communicate information to the public regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with new technologies.
• Benefits and costs: Federal regulation and oversight of emerging technologies should be based on an awareness of the potential benefits and the potential costs of such regulation and oversight, including recognition of the role of limited information and risk in decision making.
• Flexibility: To the extent practicable, Federal regulation and oversight should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate new evidence and learning and to take into account the evolving nature of information related to emerging technologies and their applications.
• Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Risk assessment should be distinguished from risk management. The Federal Government should strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and risk management across various agencies and offices and across various technologies. Federally mandated risk management actions should be appropriate to, and commensurate with, the degree of risk identified in an assessment.
• Coordination: Federal agencies should seek to coordinate with one another, with state authorities, and with stakeholders to address the breadth of issues, including health and safety, economic, environmental, and ethical issues (where applicable) associated with the commercialization of an emerging technology, in an effort to craft a coherent approach. There should be a clear recognition of the statutory limitations of each Federal and state agency and an effort to defer to appropriate entities when attempting to address the breadth of issues.
• International Cooperation: The Federal Government should encourage coordinated and collaborative research across the international community. It should clearly communicate the regulatory approaches and understanding of the United States to other nations. It should promote informed choices and both sharing and development of relevant data, particularly with respect to the benefits and costs of regulation and oversight. The Federal Government should participate in the development of international standards, consistent with U.S. law and guidance (e.g., the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and OMB Circular A-119). When appropriate, international approaches should be coordinated as far in advance as possible, to help ensure that such approaches are consistent with these principles.
• Regulation: The Federal Government should adhere to Executive Order 13563 and, consistent with that Executive Order, the following principles, to the extent permitted by law, when regulating emerging technologies:
  • Decisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information, within the boundaries of the authorities and mandates of each agency;
  • Regulations should be developed with a firm commitment to fair notice and to public participation;
  • The benefits of regulation should justify the costs (to the extent permitted by law and recognizing the relevance of uncertainty and the limits of quantification and monetary equivalents);
  • Where possible, regulatory approaches should promote innovation while also advancing regulatory objectives, such as protection of health, the environment, and safety;
  • When no significant oversight issue based on a sufficiently distinguishing attribute of the technology or the relevant application can be identified, agencies should consider the option not to regulate;
  • Where possible, regulatory approaches should be performance-based and provide predictability and flexibility in the face of fresh evidence and evolving information; and
  • Regulatory approaches shall comply with established requirements and guidance such as the following:
    • Executive Order 13563 – Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 14, Friday, January 21, 2011, 3821-3823, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf;
    • Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning and Review. Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 190, Monday, October 4, 1993, 51735-51744, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866.pdf;
    • Information Quality Act (Sec. 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554); Information Quality Guidelines: OMB (2002) Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (2002), 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible2.pdf;
    • National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”). Public Law 104-113, available at http://standards.gov/standards_gov/nttaa.cfm;
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Transmittal Memorandum, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards (02/10/1998), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html;
    • OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (December 16, 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf;
    • OMB Bulletin No. 07-02 (M-07-07), Issuance of OMB’s “Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices” (January 18,2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf;
    • OMB/OSTP Memorandum: M-07-24, Updated Principles for Risk Analysis (September 19, 2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-24.pdf;
    • The Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (Pub.L. 96-39, 93 Stat.
      144, enacted July 26, 1979, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch.13 (19 U.S.C. §
      2501-2581);
    • A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable
      Growth and Quality Jobs” (September 2009), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/SEPT_20_Innovation_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf; and
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Disclosure and Information As Regulatory Tools (June 18, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/disclosure_principles.pdf

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology – PCAST – has just released a new report on US K-12 education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (the STEM subjects).  The report provides, in the words of the President’s Science Advisor John Holdren, “a strategy for improving K-12 STEM education that responds to the tremendous challenges and historic opportunities facing the Nation”.

In a covering letter to President Obama, PCAST co-chairs John Holdren and Eric Lander explain that they

“ envision a two-pronged strategy for transforming K-12 education. We must prepare students so they have a strong foundation in STEM subjects and are able to use this knowledge in their personal and professional lives. And we must inspire students so that all are motivated to study STEM subjects in school and many are excited about the prospect of having careers in STEM fields. But this report goes much further than that. It includes specific and practical recommendations that your Administration can take that would help bring this two-pronged strategy to fruition. These recommendations fall under five overarching priorities: (1) improve Federal coordination and leadership on STEM education; (2) support the state-led movement to ensure that the Nation adopts a common baseline for what students learn in STEM; (3) cultivate, recruit, and reward STEM teachers that prepare and inspire students; (4) create STEM-related experiences that excite and interest students of all backgrounds; and (5) support states and school districts in their efforts to transform schools into vibrant STEM learning environments.”

“Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) for America’s Future” is a thoughtful report which captures many of the concerns that have been expressed by scientists and educators in recent years.  Reading the report, it’s clear that the group writing it were guided by four overarching ideas.

• Science, engineering and technology will be increasingly important in determining economic success in the future;
• An effective STEM education at the K-12 stage is essential to ensuring the US has an educated workforce and a strong foundation of innovators;
• Increasing science, technology an math literacy is essential to building a citizenship that makes informed decisions in a technology-driven age; and
• Everyone can appreciate the wonder of science, technology, engineering and math, if they are enabled through education to do so.

I should be clear that this is my articulation of the underlying ideas and not PCAST’s.  But these perspectives are woven into the fabric of the report, and are reflected in the analysis, conclusions and recommendations that result.

This isn’t surprising – speak to scientists and engineers in the US, or attend a large conference like the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, and you will find similar ideas permeating the air when it comes to science in society and STEM education.

But I wonder whether this perspective, while leading to a relatively conventional and no doubt widely applauded assessment of STEM education in the US, prevented PCAST from thinking more innovatively about the challenges being faced by STEM education in an increasingly complex world.  In particular, I wonder to what extent the report overlooks the aspirations of the students it is aimed at, or new thinking on the relationship between science, technology and society coming from the social sciences.

For example, a different mix of working group members contributing to the report might quite legitimately come up with this alternative set of overarching ideas:

• Science, engineering and technology will be increasingly important in underpinning economic and societal sustainability in the future;
• An effective STEM education at the K-12 stage is essential to ensuring US citizens can contribute to and participate in the emerging science technology-driven economy;
• In the future, citizens will need to be better equipped to make informed decisions on the role and impacts of science, technology and engineering within society; and
• Everyone should have the opportunity to enrich their lives and experiences through a greater understanding and appreciation of science, technology, engineering and math.

These four alternative ideas reflect my own perspective admittedly.  But they also draw on broader conversations within the US, Europe and beyond on the roles of science in society.  More importantly, they place society and the individual at the heart of the issue, rather than economic growth.

Reading the PCAST report through the lens of these alternative ideas, it begins to look a little limited.  This isn’t really a criticism – the task at hand was clearly how to ensure US economic leadership through STEM education, rather than how to build a sustainable society.  But my fear is that if you take society too far out of the equation, economy-driven actions on STEM education will not be sustainable in the long run.

For example, the following four areas are not emphasized in the report, yet are areas I would consider are important to building a citizenship that is equipped at all levels to succeed in a technology-dependent and interconnected society:

Social enrichment through science and technology. The word “society” appears five times in the PCAST report (six if you include the executive summary).  Here’s the context in each case:

“[STEM education] will ensure our society continues to make fundamental discoveries and to advance our understanding of ourselves, our planet, and the universe”

“Although opinion polls show that most of the public believes science has a positive and significant impact on society, the general public’s comfort with STEM subjects is much more limited”

“ a basic understanding of technology and engineering is important if our children are to contribute to and compete in a rapidly changing society and an increasingly interconnected global community.”

“Technology has the potential to transform K-12 education, just as it has many other sectors of our economy and our society.”

“… teachers and schools must connect students with the dynamic world of STEM. In turn, this requires that teachers, schools, and school systems have a deep understanding of STEM activities in American society and business and that they maintain direct connections to appropriate STEM expertise.”

With the possible exception of the first instance, there is no sense of STEM education enriching and equipping society directly.  Yet if the US is to remain competitive in a science and technology-dominated world, science and technology will need to become part of the very fabric of society – and that means ensuring there is clear and personal social value attached to STEM education.  Students are not simply empty vessels waiting to be filled with a STEM education by smart teachers and fancy techniques (an idea that comes perilously close to the deficit model of science education, which assumes – erroneously – that filling people with more knowledge is the key to fostering “right” thinking).  Rather, they are individuals that need to be engaged in an education contract, where they see the value in what they are being offered.

Experiential science. For many people – myself included – the key to learning STEM subjects has always been experience.  By that I mean physical, messy, hands-on experience – where you try something, you see what happens, and you begin to get a better idea of how the world works and how you can use that knowledge.  This is lab work (or field work or kitchen science) – not book-learning, or even learning in a digital environment.  And it should be a critical part of any strategy for engaging and training students in STEM subjects.

The PCAST report does mention on a number of occasions the importance of individual experiences in STEM education.  But for an effective country-wide STEM education strategy, I would suggest that formal opportunities for experiential science need to be pushed much further up the agenda.

Here’s a quick example:  Going to a reasonably good but certainly not high-flying comprehensive school in the UK as a kid, I had physics, chemistry and biology labs every week.  Between three and six times a week I would be experiencing science in a very real and personal way.  Without a doubt this had a profound influence on my understanding and appreciation of science, and on my future career as a scientist.  As a result, I naively assumed that this is what science education is like for everyone.

Fast forward now 25 plus years.  My daughter recently graduated from ninth grade in a highly respected school in Northern Virginia.  She has an interest in science, but at the age of 15, she has never been taught in a proper lab, or had the opportunity to learn consistently through experiment and experience.  When I discovered this, I was deeply shocked.  Her science lessons consisted of book learning!  But the real tragedy is that my daughter could easily become engaged in science given half a chance.  This last year her class was scheduled to dissect a frog at the end of the year – she spent nine months anticipating the event (we had regular updates as a family on how long there was to go before the eventful day arrived).  This was pretty much going to be her experiential science-event of the year.  But when the day came, the teacher cried off with the excuse there were not enough rubber gloves to go around.

So much for experiential science, and so much for inspiring kids to get into science!

What worries me is that this was a high-achieving school in a leading school district.  If this is what’s happening there, what is the state of experiential science elsewhere in the US?

If STEM education is to get better in the US, students have to have regular and meaningful experiences of doing hands-on science.

Engaging the marginalized. If the purpose of STEM education is to ensure economic leadership, you can get away with nurturing the best and forgetting the rest.  But if the aim is a stronger, more sustainable society, STEM education must be for everyone.

There is a STEM elitism in the US, reflected in the PCAST report, that focuses on the few that can excel in STEM subjects. To be fair, the PCAST report highlights the need to engage girls and minorities.  But I get the sense that this is more to tap into their economic potential.  Yet if society as a whole is to benefit from STEM education, there needs to be an emphasis on reaching out to the marginalized – those who aren’t turned on by science and technology, those who struggle with or are intimidated by it, those who don’t cope with conventional learning styles or opportunities; those who don’t have access to effective teachers and good resources; those who always seem to get overlooked.

Going back to my daughter’s experiences, until we moved to Michigan she was in the catchment area of Thomas Jefferson High School – possibly the country’s top STEM specialist school (and highlighted in the PCAST report).  TJ has a highly competitive and intense STEM program that is designed to equip the next generation of scientists and engineers – the subjects taught, the methods used and the experiences gained far surpass any other school in the school district.  Yet it is only the intellectually elite that manage to get into to TJ – everyone else has to put up with book-learning (at least until 10^th grade, unless they were lucky enough to dissect a frog!).  I can only imagine the impact TJ-like experiences would have on students like my daughter who aren’t in the highest tier, yet have the potential to become engaged in science and technology give half a chance chance.

Another example:  Neither of my kids are particularly competitive, but they do like doing stuff that interests them.  Both of them have had opportunities to get involved in competitive science and math at school – but have not taken them because they don’t get on well with the emphasis on achievement (and beating others) rather than experience.  They represent a huge community of kids in the US who are marginalized because they just want to do cool stuff, not compete with their peers.

And one final example.  Where do special education students fit in with the US STEM education strategy?  On the economic competitive front, there’s little incentive to engage them.  But from a societal perspective, there is every reason.  This was brought home to me in the recent highly innovative and successful UK I’m A Scientist event, where I found myself engaging with teenagers from a special education school.  It made me realize that there are groups of kids out there who tend to be forgotten, but who have as much right to be exposed to and engaged in science and technology as everyone else.

A socially-relevant STEM educations strategy must be capable of reaching out to students who otherwise fall between the gaps.

Fostering a culture of learning. Another PCAST report word-count:  How many times does the word “parent” appear?  Six.  How many times is the need to support STEM education through parent engagement and involvement mentioned?  None.

Many educators would consider parental support and involvement as a major factor in a child’s education.  Parents are one of the primary contributors to a culture of learning, and can have a strong influence on the subjects their kids gravitate toward or away from.  Yet many parents struggle with STEM subjects, leaving a gap in the tapestry of inputs that will help students explore and even excel in these subjects.

I would expect a comprehensive and socially-responsive STEM education strategy to emphasize engaging with parents and equipping them to support and inspire their children.  But this is part of a larger need to develop a culture within which children are given every opportunity to explore and excel in areas that are not only of interest to them, but important to the society they are a part of.

The PCAST report gets some of the way there to supporting a culture of learning.  The emphasis on inspiration clearly reflects this, as does the recommendation to create opportunities for inspiration through individual and group experiences outside the classroom.  But there is so much more that is needed here – in the classroom, in the home, within peer groups and in the places where kids go – if a culture of learning is to be developed that gives students the opportunity to explore and embrace science, technology, engineering and math on their own terms.

This assessment probably comes across as being more down on the PCAST report than is warranted.  Certainly, the Council has done a good job of capturing mainstream concerns in the US.  But I do wonder if this has been a lost opportunity to be more innovative in rethinking STEM education in the US, and to move way from a top-down approach to education and towards a more integrated and socially-responsive approach.

But then I guess it all comes down to whether you see education as an engine of economic prosperity that leads to a better society, or education as a means to a better society that leads to economic prosperity!

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plans to form a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and synthetic biology.  The announcement was make by Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at OSTP, at a government-organized workshop on Risk Management Methods and Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology held last week.  The AAAS policy alert (not available on the web yet available here) noted that the group is intended to provide research funding agencies and regulatory agencies an opportunity to discuss emerging policy issues.

Unfortunately I wasn’t at the workshop in Washington DC where Kalil made his remarks, and so don’t know any more about this than was included in the brief note from AAAS.  However, from what was reported, this seems a sensible move – if carried through thoughtfully.

Nanotechnology – arguably the US government’s flagship emerging technology – has highlighted the need for smart policy decisions when developing new technologies.  What started as a science-based initiative to promote new research, stimulate innovation and create new jobs, has increasingly become entangled in the social, political and economic impacts of science and technology promotion.  Ten years after President Clinton established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) – the initiative that coordinates nanotechnology activities across federal agencies – there remains an uneasy relationship between the desire to drive science discovery and technology innovation, and the need to understand and manage the potential safety, societal and economic impacts of this push.

At the heart of this uneasy relationship is a built-in resistance to asking “un-askable” questions.

The NNI’s vision is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society.” The vision is built on a belief that increasing our ability to control matter at the nanoscale is essential, that this will lead to a technology revolution, and that this revolution will benefit society. This is a powerful driver, and has contributed largely to the success of the NNI specifically and nanotechnology more broadly.  But it does mean that people who ask difficult questions tend to be tarred by a brush that’s reserved for whistle blowers and inconvenient activists.

This has been seen in the slow and sometimes reluctant inclusion of research into potential health and environmental impacts under the NNI umbrella; a resistance to developing government-wide policies on developing nanotechnology responsibly (a resistance usually justified by the NNI being a science initiative, not a policy initiative); and negligible efforts to include citizens who stand to gain or loose from nanotechnology as partners in the process (see David Guston’s piece on this for instance).  There has also been a surprising lack of analysis of the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology promotion – as opposed to the economic benefits.  How many companies and economies have invested in nanotechnology simply because the US set an aggressive lead – and what has been the economic impact of this “follow the leader” mentality?

The reality is that in any initiative dedicated to promoting a given technology, people and organizations that raise issues and recommend actions that threaten to undermine this promotion risk being marginalized.  And this ends up playing into personal and agency self-interest – why give up a position of influence and the promise of funding for the sake of asking difficult questions? I can only imagine what the response to a NNI member who suggested the usefulness of the initiative should be re-examined would be – I suspect it would not be pretty!  Yet if sound and strategic policies are to be developed that benefit citizens, the “un-askable” questions are often the most important ones.

Looking forward, there is a need to develop emerging technology-related policies that are balanced by considerations other than technology promotion. alone  But on top of this, there is a need to develop more holistic approaches to emerging technologies in general.  Nanotechnology is not the only new technology on the block – technologies emerging under the banners of synthetic biology,  robotics, geoengineering, cognitive enhancement and a plethora of others are coming up fast.  Then there are the gray areas between these where convergence leads to increasingly complex and ill-defined technologies.  In the face of accelerating innovation, should policies be developed for each and every new technology that comes along?  This would be exceedingly difficult to achieve now, and an impossible task I suspect a few years down the line.

One solution – and the one the White House seems to be pursuing – is to take a high-level approach to emerging technology policy that ensures cross-agency coordination, identifies emerging hot-spots and enables a balanced and socially-responsible approach to emerging opportunities and issues.  In some ways this is a role that the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment within the US Congress played.  But looking to an increasingly technologically-complex future, I suspect that a complete rethink of how to ensure the benefits of new technologies are realized and the dangers avoided is needed.

Depending on how it develops, the new White House interagency group could well lead to coordinated action on emerging technologies that ensures policies are responsive to the needs of citizens – not just those who have a vested interest in technology promotion.  But I can guarantee it will hit resistance from agencies, organizations and individuals who stand to loose out from this move – including those who stand to loose funding or influence as a result. of it  Yet if the US government is to embrace technology development that benefits society as a whole – especially in light of President Obama’s Innovation Strategy – it surely must create a policy forum where the “un-askable” questions can be asked; where no one interest group within the government can dominate proceedings; and where hurdles to social and economic prosperity can be identified, assessed and addressed without fear of agencies and individuals being marginalized.

Done right, this could be a critical step toward the US developing a 21st century approach to 21st century technologies.

_______________________________________

In order to ensure the new group’s effectiveness, OSTP are going to have to grapple with some tough issues.  These will include, amongst others:

Links to technology-specific initiatives. I would imagine that the new group will function best as  a complementary activity to initiatives such as the NNI.  There is clearly benefit to having strong technology-promotion initiatives like the NNI, and it would seem foolish to diminish these.  And initiatives like this are essential for intelligence on where emerging technologies are going.  Yet at the same time it is important that policy decisions are decoupled somewhat from technology promotion.  One way to do this is to ensure strong links between initiatives such as the NNI and the new group.

Agency-engagement at a senior level. To avoid yet another talking-shop, the new group will need to engage agencies at a senior level – ensuring that participants have decision-making authority.

Balance of interest. To the extent that it is possible across federal agencies, the group is more likely to be effective if there is balance between different interests – including science, business, economic growth, social development and prosperity, and oversight.

Funding. One fear of establishing a group like this is that it will undermine efforts to fund oversight and social impacts-related research through initiatives such as the NNI.  This is a serious concern, although it would be dangerous to place research funding interests within specific sectors ahead of sound policy formulation.  Nevertheless, it would be prudent to both ensure the new group does not adversely impact on current funding into the challenges and potential impacts of emerging technologies, and to develop mechanisms to support and stimulate new funding to address strategically important issues.

Stakeholder input. It is hard to imagine how the planned interagency group will function effectively without non-government stakeholder input.  In the absence of balanced input from different stakeholder groups – representatives of business, citizens and academia in particular – cross-government policies on emerging technologies are unlikely to be relevant, responsive or effective.  This will almost definitely mean setting up a Federal Advisory Committee to the group  to ensure informed and representative input.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it for a moment:

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

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

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

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

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/2008/12/20/obama-staking-out-a-science-and-technology-presidency/ http://2020science.org/2008/12/20/obama-staking-out-a-science-and-technology-presidency/#comments Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:57:47 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=607

John Holdren is confirmed as the next Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

Barack Obama is serious about science and technology.  It was clear in the campaign; clear in the President-Elect’s policies, and doubly clear in the speed with which he has established scientific leadership for the incoming administration.

Today’s official announcement that John Holdren is being appointed Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (which in addition to re-establishing a cabinet-level S&T asvisor, includes Hodren being Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), puts the finishing touches to what many would consider a “dream team” for leading science and technology that serves society.

But just as important as the team is the philosophy behind it.  In today’s address (which as usual is viewable on YouTube), Obama emphasized clearly the importance of science and technology in tackling national and global challenges:

“Whether it’s the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs—today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.”

But he also was also clear on the importance of science and evidence-based decision-making in society:

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

This is a profoundly important position to take as the US squares up to take on some of the biggest challenges ever faced by humanity.  High on the list are hunger, disease, access to clean water, energy, security, and climate change.  And these are being driven by a growing global population, increasing quality of life expectations, and a closer-than-ever coupling between human actions and global responses.

Science and technology are only part of the solution to these issues—but it is near impossible to imagine how progress can be made without the generation of new knowledge, and its innovative application in making people’s lives better.

The challenge for Holdren and the rest of Obama’s science and technology team will be to make-good on the new administration’s aims; through providing advice, crafting policies and taking action that will lead to science-led solutions to these and other issues.

The good news is that the incoming team members seem to have what it takes.  Jonathan Moreno, editor-in-chief of Science Progress, has described them as “surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades.”

Of course, this is just the beginning—it’s yet to be seen how this “dream team” will work together and help ensure science and technology are used to the full, while avoiding the problems that poorly-conceived scitech innovation can sometimes throw up.

But for now, the future is looking pretty bright for science and technology.

______________________________________

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMlXNrBxM0g&eurl=http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_search_for_knowledge_truth_and_a_greater_understanding_of_the_world_aro/]

Reports are coming in that Professor John Holdren – director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, University of Harvard – is Barack Obama’s pick for science advisor, and head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

From ScienceDirect:

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president’s science adviser.

A top adviser to the Obama campaign and international expert on energy and climate, Holdren would bolster Obama’s team in those areas. Both are crowded portfolios. Obama has already created a new position to coordinate energy issues in the White House staffed by well-connected Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and nominated a Nobel-prize winning physicist, Steve Chu, to head the Department of Energy. That could complicate how the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which Holdren will run, will manage energy and environmental policy.

And from the Washington Post:

President-elect Obama will announce this weekend that he has selected physicist John Holdren, who has devoted much of his career to energy and environmental research, as his White House science adviser, according to a published report today.

The Obama transition office would not confirm Holdren’s selection. Last night, asked by The Post to comment on the science adviser search, Holdren responded by e-mail that he would be unable to comment because of his work with the Obama transition team.

Maintaining a longstanding tradition for presidential science advisors, Holdren is a physicist by training.  But his forte is the intersection between science, the environment and society – making him an exciting addition to the science and technology-based team Obama is rapidly assembling.

Update, Dec 20:

In his weekly address, President-Elect Obama has just confirmed the appointment of John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).  He has also confirmed that Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander will be the other co-chairs of PCAST.

From the address (viewable on YouTube here):

“Whether it’s the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs—today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.

Right now, in labs, classrooms and companies across America, our leading minds are hard at work chasing the next big idea, on the cusp of breakthroughs that could revolutionize our lives. But history tells us that they cannot do it alone. From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process.

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

Update Dec 21:  Holdren confirmed as next Assistant to the President for Science and Technology