2020 Science » Science Policy

Is nanotechnology suffering from “silent rave” syndrome?

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:00:32 +0000

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

Originally posted October 5 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______

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

Nanotechnology policy and regulation timeline

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:28:27 +0000

Marc Saner at Carleton University in Canada sent this timeline of key nanotech policy events to me the other day. It’s probably the most comprehensive compilation of events influencing the development of nanotech policy in America, Europe and Australia I’ve seen to date – well worth taking a look at if you have any interest whatsoever in what happened when related to the oversight of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials.

It also includes hotlinks to web-based documents where they are available, making the timeline a great resource for tracking down elusive reports.

The timeline isn’t inclusive – I’m not sure capturing everything is humanly possible – but it’s pretty good. It’s also a living document – if you have something you think should be there that isn’t, you can email in your updates.

Power to the people – should citizens be more involved in assessing energing technologies?

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:50:58 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

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

White House plans a new government policy coordination group on emerging technologies

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:27:11 +0000

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.

The UK Nanotechnologies Strategy – disappointing

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:59:02 +0000

Ten years ago, President Clinton laid the foundation stone of the current global Nanotechnology Initiative. In a speech given at at Caltech, he announced the formation of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, and set a chain of events in motion that has led to economies and businesses around the world investing in the technology of the small. A decade on, nanotechnology is a multi-billion dollar research and development enterprise, is touted as holding the promise of reviving economies, creating jobs and solving global challenges, and is already adding to the performance and value of innumerable products.

Against this backdrop, the UK Government has just released its first a new strategy for the successful and safe development of nanotechnology – or nanotechnologies to be precise. [See update for why this isn't the first strategy]

I was interested to read the strategy, having just finished helping to review the US National Nanotechnology Initiative for the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (the PCAST review of the NNI is due to be published shortly). The UK has had a strong presence in the nanotechnology arena for some years, combined with a pragmatic approach to technology development. So I was expectant of a strong and sensible strategy that mapped out how the country planned to be a key player in the “next industrial revolution.”

Sadly, I was disappointed.

At the risk of boring readers, I’m going to include somewhat detailed comments on the strategy below. But here are my headline reflections:

Successful nanotechnologies need strategic investment in science. The strategy focuses on three key areas: exploiting nanotechnology breakthroughs commercially, addressing potential health, safety and environmental impacts, and regulating the technology and its products. However, there is no specific emphasis on exploratory science. The implicit assumption is that the machinery of knowledge generation – funding for exploratory research, and the expertise to generate new knowledge – is in place. But this is a very rash assumption indeed. Without strategic investment in funding exploratory nanoscale science, especially at the interface between disciplines, the UK is likely to loose out to other countries that recognize the need to drive innovation through knowledge creation. The US and China in particular are steaming ahead here – without a clear research strategy, the UK is destined to become marginalized.
Innovation begets innovation. While the strategy addresses the commercial exploitation of nanotechnology in general terms, it stops short of considering how innovative new approaches can be used to get innovative new technologies to market – including alternative financing models, new ways of enabling technology transfer, and overcoming institutional barriers to change.
Risk and regulation cannot drive an effective nanotechnologies strategy. I’m a strong advocate of dealing with the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnologies. But developing a national nanotechnologies strategy that is two thirds-focused on understanding and addressing potential risks seems a little over the top, even to me! Strategic risk-research and responsive oversight are absolutely essential to the safe and sustained development of nanotechnology-based products and processes. But in the broader context, they should support the overall aims of improving quality of life, stimulating economic growth and providing jobs – not be the heart and soul of the whole enterprise.
Nanotechnologies risk research isn’t just about reassuring people that products are safe. Despite a heavy emphasis on risk and regulation, the strategy seems to reflect a somewhat naive understanding of why research into potential risks, handling uncertainty and developing responsive oversight is important. Repeatedly, the need to reassure “the public” that the products they buy are safe is highlighted as an important driver. But how about the need of businesses to develop and market products responsibly? Many businesses that have a culture (or are developing one ) of placing a high priority on producing safe and responsible products are desperate for better information on how to do this with nanotech-enabled products. Yet it’s telling that the UK strategy has no clear link between environmental, health and safety research and business, industry and innovation.
Strategies should be built on sound data. There are a number of places in the report where the data are suspect – especially in the section dealing with business, industry and innovation. At the least, I would expect a Government-level report to get the facts right. For instance, it is claimed that the UK is fourth in the world in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents applied for, after the US, Japan and Germany. Yet the latest figures – published last year – show the UK ranking 11th in terms of the number of patents filed in the country (in 2008, 68 nanotechnology patents were filed in the UK, compared to 3,729 in the US and 5,030 in China. That’s around 0.5% of all nanotechnology patents filed in 2008). The report also estimates “the global market in nano-enabled products is expected to grow from $2.3 bn in 2007 to $81 bn in 2015,” yet the basis for these figures is not explained (they come from a report that will set you back $6,000 if you want to read it!). These figures seem very low – especially compared to estimates of between $1 trillion and $3 trillion from other sources for the future worth of products based in some way on nanotechnology. In effect, the UK Government figures are meaningless without further explanation. And if they are correct, I have to wonder why governments and industry around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in a technology that is only going to be worth… tens of billions of dollars!
If you are going to form a Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group, make sure their scope extends beyond just addressing risks. I have to applaud the UK strategy for listing a sensible set of nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research priorities (Appendix A of the report). But to make these THE research priorities of the Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group – that just send a message that the UK government is only interested in potential risks. Changing the name of the group might be a good idea!
Resist the temptation to include past activities as strategic actions. Call me a pedant, but I do find it frustrating where a strategy includes stuff that has already been done in its list of actions. It smacks of padding things out, rather than looking forward to what needs to be done, and how. Actions 3.3 – 3.6, just for example, refer to activities already underway – nothing particularly strategic about that!
Don’t confuse toxicology with risk science. There are three action points in the report (3.14 – 3.16) specifically aimed at developing the UK’s toxicology skills base. This is good – it should be developed. But so should expertise in exposure assessment, risk assessment, risk management, handling uncertainty and oversight. Sadly, the strategy seems to assume that toxicology is the be-all and end-all of risk identification, assessment and management, whereas in reality it is only one component.
If you are going to reach out to members of the public, take it seriously. In 2009 BIS supported what is possibly the best lay source of information on nanotechnologies – Nano & Me. But rather than praising the initiative and supporting it, the UK strategy is rather less than luke-warm. According to the strategy, the website has completed its 5 months (5 months?!) trial period, and will now be evaluated – that’s it. This effort needs to be run longer – much longer. It needs to be funded better. And it needs to be promoted by the Government, not treated like an embarrassing relative.

So all in all, not a great strategy. It’s not all bad – there are strengths in what the UK has done and intends to do in developing safe and successful nanotechnologies. But as a strategy, this would have been flaky five years ago, and is now positively threadbare.

In a global climate where economies are eying one another up to see who’s going to take the lead in nanotechnology, I’m afraid the strategy sends a clear message – don’t worry about us!

__________________________________________

Some more specific observations

In the executive summary (p4), there is no mention of supporting research in nanoscience that will lead to innovation in nanotechnologies.
Nanotechnologies are described as being “at a very early stage in their development” (p6). After a ten-year global push and many previous years’ research into nanoscale science, together with a wealth of nanotech-enabled products on the market, this is a dubious statement at best.
I’m wondering when we will see “more compact and powerful computer systems, mobile phones and wiring systems incorporating carbon nanotubes” (p6) – unless it’s just the wiring systems that will use the nanotubes. Very unclear.
I’ve already questioned the projection of the global market in nano-enabled goods as $81 bn in 2015 above.
Apparently, the UK also has the third highest number of nanotechnologies companies in the world. Wow! Which countries are leading us – the US, China, Japan, Korea, Germany perhaps? Take your pick – although I’m not sure how you will tell if you are correct, as no source was given for the claim.
A tricky point in any report like this is explaining what nanotechnologies are. I’d love to know what others thought of the explanation in Box 1 (p6), which gets close to mixing and matching nanotechnologies, nanomaterials and nanoparticles. I was confused!
I’ve already addressed the question of nanotechnology patents above. Why the report didn’t cite Dang et al. I don’t know!
On page 7 the report states “At present, it is thought that the greatest level of risk may be posed by nanomaterials which are in the form of free particles, such as in a powder or liquid.” This was a conclusion of the 2005 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineers report on nanotechnologies, and is still important. But over the past five years, perspectives have developed and become a little more sophisticated, recognizing the need to consider how new materials might come into contact with and interact with people and the environment, rather than fixating on nanoparticles.
This I found interesting: On page 9 it is stated that “Above all, it is Government’s role to protect health and the environment during the development and use of nanotechnologies.” This possibly explains the emphasis on risk and regulation in the strategy.
Figure 1 in the report shows the linkages between the four different areas of the strategy. But as mentioned above, there is no direct linkage between environmental, health and safety research, and business, industry and innovation. I would argue that two-way links here are absolutely essential to responsible development.
Here’s a recurring theme in the strategy. On page 11 one challenge to the commercialization of nanotechnologies listed is “A need for industry to engage with the public in order to raise awareness of the benefits of nanotechnologies-based products, and to counter any negative perceptions or concerns” (emphasis added). I’m sorry, this is not what public engagement is all about. In fact, in the light of this, I’m embarrassed to have applauded the UK’s approaches to public engagement and science last week – clearly there are some communication disconnects between departments!
On page 15, in reading about a lack of critical mass amongst small nanotech businesses in the UK, and a lack of business leadership, I was wondering where the Nanotechnology Industry Alliance was… Surely these small businesses aren’t voiceless.
Page 21 lists some good research into nanotechnology environmental, health and safety issues carried out in the UK. Unless I have missed something, they are all associated with a group of researcher based in Edinburgh. Should this have been called the Scottish Nanotechnologies Strategy?
However, on the same page an important study into the the potential health impacts of long carbon nanotubes is credited to Ken Donaldson – Graig Poland, not Ken, was the lead author. This sort of mistake should not occur in a report like this one!
I’ve already mentioned the strange name of the group established to focus on nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research above (p 22) – the Nanotechnologies Research Strategy Group. Wonder if the UK has a shadow group looking at non-environmental, health and safety research.
I’ve also covered the emphasis on toxicology above, but this is so important that it’s worth mentioning again. On page 26 the report states “A shortage of new toxicologists was identified in RCEP’s report in 2008 as a risk to the nanotechnologies field, as toxicology research is pivotal to the successful development of new materials and products.” Looking over that RCEP report, it had a strong emphasis on toxicology which at the time was not out of place. But the UK strategy seems to have taken one recommendation from that report and run with it, to the exclusion of every other aspect of risk identification, assessment and management. I’m not sure what the opposite of a strategy is, but this would qualify in my books. Strategic action towards developing safe and responsible nanotechnologies must address all aspects of risk – not just material hazard.
On page 27, the strategy sets out the four key areas where “nanomaterials are most likely to come into contact with humans, or the environment”: Food; Cosmetics; Healthcare devices and medicines; and Workplace health and safety. These are all very reasonable. But what about all the other strategic areas – products which might shed nanomaterials while being used; products that lead to inadvertent exposure; products that release nanomaterials when disposed of or recycled; products that children might chew on or ingest, and so on. Restricting the strategy to these four areas seems, well, restrictive.
Following up on those medical devices and medicines, there’s no mention of the regulatory challenges presented by combination products – products that act as both a device and a medicine. Maybe this isn’t an issue in the UK – it’s certainly one in the US.
When it comes to the workplace, I was intrigued to see that “there are no current plans for any specific guidance on risk management for materials other than carbon nanotubes.” Why? Businesses and researchers are desperate for clear guidance on working safely with nanomaterials, which is why organizations such as NIOSH, ICON and ISO have been so active in the area. The good news is that, even if the UK government isn’t intending to provide useful information for working with nanomaterials in the immediate future, others are filling the gap.

Update, 3/18/10 When this piece was first posted, I mistakenly referred to the strategy as the UK’s first nanotechnology strategy – a perception that the report itself does nothing to dispel. However, as Michael Kenward kindly pointed out in the comments, this is in fact the UK’s second nanotechnology strategy (as long as you don’t nit-pick over differences between “nanotechnology” and “nanotechnologies.”). The original strategy – published in 2002 – is available here Strangely, the current strategy does not acknowledge the existence of its predecessor. [PDF, 422 KB].

British Science in the 21st century: The Royal Society on securing Britain’s future prosperity

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:30:58 +0000

It’s a week for significant science reports. Following hot on the heels of the UK Expert Group on Science and Trust’s report on Monday comes what could well be a seminal work on science in 21st century Britain from the Royal Society. In “The scientific century: securing our future prosperity” a distinguished panel of experts takes on Britain’s role in the knowledge economy, and lays out a strong set of recommendations and actions to underpin the country’s leadership in science and technology.

This is far too important and weighty a document to summarize and review after only a brief reading. So at this point I will content myself with simply laying out the key recommendations. I would however encourage anyone with the slightest interest in science’s role in the 21st century – whether from Britain or elsewhere – to read this report closely and take its recommendations seriously. It’s possibly the most significant assessment of how to develop coherent, responsive and sustainable science policies since the US National Academies published “Rising above the gathering Storm” in 2007.

Recommendation1: Put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth

Create a new long-term framework for science and innovation committing to increased expenditure
Outline spending plans over a 15 year period (2011 – 2026)
Prioritise investment in scientific capital – including infrastructure and skills
Expand the R&D Tax Credit

Recommendation 2: Prioritise investment in excellent people

Direct a greater proportion of Research Council funding to investigator-led research
Increase the length and quality of UK PhD training
Support transferable skills training for researchers
increase the number of postdoctoral fellowships

Recommendation 3: Strengthen Government’s use of science

Review strategic science spending by Government departments
Expand the Small Business Research Initiative to support innovative procurement
Provide Department Chief Scientific Advisers with greater resources
Appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Treasury

Recommendation 4: Reinforce the UK’s position as a hub for global science and innovation

Extend the geographic reach of the UK Science and Innovation Network
Increase support for mechanisms, such as the Science Bridges scheme, which link UK research groups with partners overseas
Incentivise more of the world’s best scientists to remain in, or relocate to, the UK
improve visa conditions for visiting scientists and researchers to the UK

Recommendation 5: Better align science and innovation with global challenges

Create strong global challenge research programmes, led by RCUK, to align scientific, commercial and public interests
Reform research funding and assessment to support and reward interdisciplinary research
Use public and stakeholder dialogue ti help identify and shape these challenges
Ringfence departmental contributions to priority research areas

Recommendation 6: Revitalise science and mathematics education

Provide incentives to recruit, retain and attract teachers back to science subjects
Commit to increasing the numbers of primary teachers with science expertise
Establish new expert groups to advise on the development of science and mathematics curricula and qualifications

One final word: The figures used in the report are well worth checking out – they are a model in presenting complex information in a compelling way.

The report “The scientific century: securing our future prosperity” can be downloaded from http://royalsociety.org/the-scientific-century/

New report on Science and Trust emphasizes acknowledging risk and uncertainty

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:14:59 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

In this context,the group recommended that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science Media Centre briefing on Climate Science in the Media – Don’t Panic!!

Guest — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:45:03 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________

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

From Davos with love

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:31:03 +0000

This week I’m heading out to the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos, Switzerland. I’d like to play this cool – as if rubbing shoulders with politicians, business leaders and celebs is something I do all the time. But the reality is that this is my first time to what is probably the biggest annual gathering of world thought-leaders and decision-makers, and I’m just a little star-struck!

The World Economic Forum has been gathering world leaders together to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an informal and intimate setting for four decades now – this year’s Annual Meeting is the fortieth. It’s a unique forum, where political and business leaders rub shoulders with academics, activists and celebrities as they get a handle on the major issues facing society around the world. This is one of the few places where you run the chance of bumping into people like Bono, Bill Gates and Al Gore as you get your morning coffee.

Held in the Swiss Ski resort of Davos, a mix of formal, informal and private meetings brings a diverse group of people together to not only discuss the issues facing the world, but to craft workable solutions. In the 2500 people at this year’s meeting, there will over 900 chief executives from a wide range of business sectors, government representatives from the world’s top 25 economies and fast-growing small countries (including heads of state and government), civil society leaders, academics, thought-leaders and media representatives.

Within this rather eclectic mix, I will be talking to people about emerging technologies, and their place in 21st century global society. It’s an area that fits glove-in-hand with this year’s theme – “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild” – but is often overlooked in the social, economic and policy debates. There’s a tendency to simply assume that science and technology will come up with solutions to pressing problems – my job is to disabuse people of this fancy, and get some concerted action on how we are going to actively ensure science and technology help improve people’s lives without creating more problems than they solve.

Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from Davos (assuming I have any time in a schedule that starts early in the morning, and seems to extend to early the next morning). Just to avoid disappointment, I won’t be dishing the dirt on off the record meetings – there are rules to respect here. I will try and provide a sense of my experiences here though, and in particular how emerging technologies seem to be fitting in to the grand scheme of things.

But back to being just a little star-struck. Glimpsing through the program (I’m still filling my dance card) I see that Lang Lang (the pianist) will be performing, Margaret Atwood will be talking about After the Flood and James Cameron will be discussing Avator – and that’s before I’ve even got to the serious socioeconomic stuff.

I wonder if any of them are interested in talking emerging tech over an espresso…

_______________________________________

As well as posting the occasional blog from Davos, I will be posting short comments on Twitter and the 2020 Science Facebook Page. I also see that Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief and publisher of Technology Review – will be tweeting from the event (I’ll be talking with Jason and a few others on science and technology breakthroughs next Wednesday).

Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:00:04 +0000

The final part of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Nine months ago, I embarked on an ambitious project to flesh out the ideas presented in a seminar given at the James Martin 21st Century School at the University of Oxford. The seminar was titled ““Rethinking science and technology innovation: A Personal Perspective.” In it, I spoke about three factors that are coming together to change the landscape in which science and technology are developed and used for social good (coupling, communication and control), and how science and technology policy might respond to the new challenges that are arising as a consequence.

Rather naively, I thought this would occupy me for a few weeks. The fact that I gave the original seminar in March, and I’m typing this in December, is a rather damning testament to my own lack of foresight!

Finally though, I have come to the end of the series. I’m not sure how useful it has been or whether it will stand the test of time – there are certainly a lot of words within the eleven blogs associated with it, but whether they coalesce into new and worthwhile ideas is another matter entirely. However, it has helped me explore more thoroughly some of the concepts that drove the original seminar, and further develop my thoughts on science and technology might play in the 21st century.

The complete blog series can be accessed from here. It addresses the critical roles science and technology will increasingly play in society over the coming decades; the challenges of getting science and technology-based strategies and policies right; and thoughts on how to respond to these challenges – leading to a future where science and technology are used for good, rather than leading to harm.

I’m not going to attempt to summarize the series here – a pretty succinct precis of the challenges and opportunities we face can be found in this post if you are interested. Rather, I wanted to round the series off by ruminating more broadly and speculatively on the future challenges and opportunities we face.

First though, something of a confession: I’m a believer in science and technology. I use the “B” word advisedly – I’m not sure I could prove unequivocally that science and technology innovation lead to people and communities being happier, more fulfilled, or having a greater “quality of life.” But as a scientist, I can see how science and technology provide the means to alleviate suffering, improve health and well-being, and help define who we are. I also see a society that is built on a foundation of science and technology and that is unavoidably and irreversibly dependent on them. And as I gaze into my (admittedly murky) crystal ball, I find it hard to conceive of a future where science and technology are not essential to maintaining and improving people’s lives around the world.

But herein lies a challenge – if we are dependent on science and technology, how do we ensure that this dependency works for us, rather than against us? We’ve spent the past several millennia grappling with this question, not always successfully. But in the past, the rates of science discovery and technology advance have typically taken place over timescales that have allowed us to adapt (eventually) to the changes they bring about.

Entering the 21st century, all this is changing. Science and technology are now progressing so fast that we are struggling to adapt to one set of breakthroughs before the next comes along – and the rate at “progress” is being made is accelerating. Intertwined with this are the three factors of coupling, communication and control that are leading to challenges and opportunities never before experienced in human history.

From where I’m standing, it’s hard to imagine how we can ride the coming wave without a radical rethink of how we develop and use science and technology within society. Certainly, it seems hopelessly naive to assume that how we’ve done things in the past will serve us well in the future. Rather, we’ve got to grow up as a global society – and grow up fast – if we are to ensure science and technology improve our lives and those of future generations, rather than causing more problems than they solve.

In this series of articles, I’ve sketched out my own thoughts on where the challenges are, and where some of the solutions might lie. They are rough, ill-formed and sometimes naive – this is very much a work in progress. Yet hopefully they provide some kernels of value as we begin to face address challenges that are very much unique to our generation.

Having said this, I must end on a note of caution. I am a science and technology optimist, but a cautious one. I genuinely believe that science and technology – if developed and used appropriately – are critical to addressing the challenges of living and thriving in an increasingly complex and resource-constrained world. But that’s my belief; it’s not a universal truth. At the end of the day, if we are to mature as a global society, we’re going to need to listen to other perspectives that maybe don’t see the world in the same way, and take full account of them as we rethink science and technology for the 21st century.

And rather conveniently, that’s the focus of the next blog series on 2020 Science.

Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:45:57 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empowering stakeholders

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

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

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

Engaging stakeholders

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Re)Evaluating drivers, mechanisms and policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pulling it all together

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

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

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

Notes

Previously: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Next: Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

What’s technology innovation got to do with it? Final thoughts on the Summit on the Global Agenda

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:00:31 +0000

As this weekend’s Summit on the Global Agenda came to a close this morning, I was left with an abiding impression of a looming yet largely hidden potential crisis in global security and prosperity: A failure to develop and use technology innovation effectively in serving the growing needs of society.

The summit set out to address a multitude of challenges to “improving the state of the world” (as the World Economic Forum tagline goes), and identified many innovative solutions to overcoming them. Yet in many cases there was a disconnect between the ideas and their effective implementation…

Where the translation of an idea into practice depended on social or policy innovation, there were often clear thoughts on how to move forward. But an integrated discussion on the role of technology innovation in enabling solutions to global challenges was conspicuous by its absence.

It wasn’t that delegates didn’t realize the importance of technology innovation. On the contrary, many of the recommendations coming out of the Summit acknowledged the need to develop and use appropriately new and emerging technologies. But there was a sense that technology innovation simply happens and that, as needs arise, solutions will naturally emerge.

I was reminded of this while listening to feedback from the Council on Water Security, whose members experienced a similar lack of awareness amongst Summit delegates. When they asked people where the water would come from to support their ideas in various areas, the reply was inevitably “I guess it will come from somewhere” – to the amusement and consternation of the Council members.

The same blind spot seems to exist for technology innovation. People realize that technology innovation is important. But when asked where it will come from, the assumption is simply that “it will come from somewhere.”

This is as dangerous as it is wrong.

Strategically relevant technology does not just happen. It depends on targeted investment, coupling outputs to needs, and working with stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate and acceptable solutions. And it takes time – lost of it. Developing appropriate technology-based solutions to global challenges is only possible if technology innovation policy is integrated into the decision-making process at the highest levels in government, industry and other relevant organizations. Without such high-level oversight, there is a tendency to use the technology that’s available, rather than to develop the technology that’s needed. And as the challenges of living in an over-populated and under-resourced world escalate, this will only exacerbate the disconnect between critical challenges and technology-based solutions.

The importance of technology innovation – and emerging technologies in particular – was highlighted by Lord Malloch-Brown in his closing remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda. Yet there is still a way to go before technology innovation is integrated into the global agenda dialogue, rather than being tacked on to it.

At this year’s Summit, there was one Council out of seventy six that was specifically charged with addressing technology innovation – the Council on Emerging Technologies. And in a move that speaks volumes about the economic and policy world’s disdain for science and technology, the Council was placed in the “Managing Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures” cluster. Clearly, emerging technologies are perceived more as a threat than an enabler of solutions.

If progress is to be made, this must change in future years. Technology innovation is key to improving the state of the world. And getting it right – targeting research, translating innovation to practice and engaging stakeholders – is essential to addressing many of the major challenges being addressed by the Summit on the Global Agenda. Rather than burying the Council on Emerging Technologies along with catastrophic risks, illicit trade, pandemics and other risk-focused councils, it surely makes sense to elevate it – along with other science and technology-rich councils – to a place where it can inform the dialogue at a much higher level.

Of course, I’m mindful here that this is the World Economic Forum I’m talking about, not the World Technology Innovation Forum. But the cold hard truth is that without global intervention, there is no guarantee that technology innovation will provide solutions to the challenges that the Forum is attempting to address.

The bottom line is that whether we are talking about economic prosperity, social stability or personal well-being, we marginalize the role of technology innovation at our peril. The broader work of the World Economic Forum reflects this. Hopefully, so will next year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.

Speaking power to truth – the unfortunate case of David Nutt

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:22:52 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn’t have been further from the truth.

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

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

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

Especially Alan Johnson!

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

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

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

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

___________________________

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

Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:35:54 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what’s the alternative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Previously: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

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

Reflections of a “scientific illiterate”

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:59:48 +0000

Reviewing Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

My name is Andrew, and I am scientifically illiterate.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

And before you protest too much, I do have some pretty convincing evidence. Math makes my head ache. I cannot recite the Earth’s geological timeline from memory. And there’s a one in ten chance that I’ll stumble over pronouncing terms like artemisinin and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

The problem lies of course with what is understood by “scientific illiteracy” rather than my abilities—at least I hope that’s the case.

The idea that modern society only works if it is based on a common understanding, appreciation and use of science has been around for a while. It seems to make sense – in a society that is increasingly dependent on science, widespread scientific ignorance is likely to lead to non-democratic leadership by a scientific elite, or ill-informed (but democratic) decisions that are ultimately destructive.

The solution would seem to be to replace scientific ignorance with scientific literacy. Get everyone thinking and acting like scientists, and the world will surely be a better place.

Unfortunately, this perspective turns out to be rather naïve. Dividing the world into scientific illiterates and literates devalues the many other skill sets and perspectives that contribute to healthy decision-making within society. It also encourages an over-simplistic approach to the challenges of critical thinking and evidence-based decision making—namely that educating people more about science will result in them making the “right” decisions. And it has a tendency to lead to scientific literacy being measured in ways that have little bearing on a person’s ability to make informed decisions…

Over the past decade or so, scholars and policy makers have come to realize that more sophisticated approaches are needed if science-informed, yet democratic, decisions are to be made by people. As a result, rather than talk about scientific literacy, discussions now tend to revolve around the ideas of dialogue and engagement – empowering people in a complex society to make personal and group decisions that are ultimately constructive.

So it was with some trepidation that I sat down to review Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s new book “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”

Fortunately, it didn’t take much reading to convince me that their perspective is rather more sophisticated than the book’s title suggests. Unscientific America is a laudable attempt to tackle science’s place in American society in an easily accessible way. Highly readable, largely enjoyable, occasionally infuriating, the book takes on the challenge of how to empower members of society to make the best use of science.

There was a lot that I liked about the book – and a lot that resonated with my own views. But there were also points where I felt the book fell short of what it could be.

Despite the book’s rather sensationalist subtitle, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of placing scientific illiteracy in a modern context. Chapter 2 on “rethinking the problem of scientific illiteracy” provides an accessible overview of current thinking – and does it reasonably well. The notion of a “public” that will make the “right” decisions if only they are sufficiently well educated – the so-called deficit model – is introduced, examined, then carefully put aside. The problem, Mooney and Kirshenbaum point out, is that the deficit model can all too easily be used to exempt scientists from the responsibility of ensuring their work is an integral part of the society they belong to:

“It’s an educational problem, they say, or a problem with the media (which doesn’t cover science accurately or pay it enough attention), and then they go back to their labs.”

But rather than discard the term “scientific illiteracy,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum prefer to redefine it, in their words “getting past issues of finger-pointing and buck-passing and the misconception that our problems can be reduced to what non-scientists say in response to survey questions.”

Their solution: emphasize an aspect of scientific literacy that stresses citizens’ awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy, and a collective future.

This makes a lot of sense, and is in many ways the lynchpin of the book. But I do have my reservations over their adherence to the idea of scientific literacy.

When scholars began to realize that the deficit model wasn’t particularly helpful to integrating science and society (for a multitude of reasons), they began to move away from talking about “science literacy” and towards talking about developing dialogues and engaging people in making science-informed decisions. These approaches complement broader discussions on the roles of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making; integrating science into a more holistic perspective of modern society.

Having established the central focus of the book, Mooney and Kirshenbaum present their ideas in a series of connected essays. From a distance, the structure makes sense. Chapters 1 and 2 set out the challenge as seen by the authors. Chapters 3 and 4 continue on to fill in the historical background – how American culture’s apparently strained relationship with science got to where it is now. Chapters 5 – 8 then deal with specific issues that highlight the current state of play—science in the media, science and popular entertainment, science and religion, and science and politics. Finally, chapters 9 and 10 begin to explore possible solutions to the “problem” of scientific illiteracy – culminating in a short conclusion that attempts to pull everything together.

Some of these chapters are a good and informative read. I was enjoying myself immensely up to chapter 8. But then I felt that the book began to run out of steam. Repeatedly, I found myself intrigued by questions set up by Chris and Sheril, then disappointed by a lack of resolution. In an attempt to try and keep things simple I suspect they ended glossing over a lot of things (see my comments below on the book’s endnotes). But in the latter chapters I was increasingly aware of a lack of depth behind the points being made.

A good example is “Bruising their religion”—the chapter on science, religion and the “new atheists.” This particular chapter has ruffled plenty of feathers throughout the blogosphere already, and I don’t intend to ruffle more by adding my two cents worth to Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s perspective. But I do want to highlight the intellectual letdown that I felt when reading the chapter – something that I experienced with increasing frequency as I progressed toward the end of the book.

In this chapter, Mooney and Kirshenbaum roundly criticize vocal and intellectually aggressive proponents of atheism—a crowd that will stop at little it seems to denigrate religious beliefs and humiliate those who adhere to them. They argue that the crude combative and even ignorant tactics employed by people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins do more to undermine scientific literacy than they do to support it.

This makes sense—intellectual bullying doesn’t often have pride of place in communications manuals!

Mooney and Kirshenbaum then state that the divide between science and religion is a false one, and the two are not mutually exclusive. But they give no concrete evidence for this, beyond citing a handful of scientists who held (or hold) religious views.

The result is a reader who is left high and dry. I wanted to know how science and religion may be reconciled, and why the preaching of the new atheists is intellectually as well as socially suspect. But what I got was little more than opinion and unsubstantiated statements.

The following chapters in the book suffer from a similar glossing over of arguments—although perhaps not to the same extent as this chapter. And as a result, I was left feeling frustrated at the lack of substance in what I was reading.

Unscientific America culminates in a six-page conclusion titled “A new mission for American Science.” Reaching this point, I was full of expectations—this was where the meat would be (I thought), where I would finally learn how science illiteracy threatens our future, and what the answers are.

In the event, I found it a bit of a let down. While I had enjoyed the book – which is only 132 pages long if you discount the extensive endnotes – I felt that I hadn’t been convinced that scientific illiteracy does indeed threaten America’s future. And as for the solution to this apparently looming problem, everything seemed to lead up to Mooney and Kirshenbaum proposing that the responsibility for integrating science into society lies with scientists. After all the buildup, this seemed a little too easy.

To be fair, it’s an important conclusion. If science is to be integrated into society, scientists as a group need to be a part of that society rather than apart from it. It’s something that we are still a long way from achieving, but I would argue it is essential if future decisions are to help rather than hinder social development.

And to be honest, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of bringing this need to a broad audience.

But I can’t help feeling that Unscientific America falls short of what it could have been. Mooney and Kirshenbaum clearly have a political and ideological bias that ends up being woven through the book, and at the end of the day this weakens its authority for me. The Bush administration’s “war on science” for instance is cited repeatedly as hindering science literacy over the past 8 years, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum stress the need to move on from “an administration widely denounced for a disdain of science unprecedented in modern American history.” Indeed, Chris Mooney has written about this in his previous book—The Republican War On Science.

Yet framing a book on science in such a strong political light is likely to alienate some readers, and will lead to diminished authority over time.

On top of this, I feel that Mooney and Kirshenbaum never quite succeeded in making a watertight case for why scientific illiteracy threatens our future—leading to the central premise of the book coming across as ideological rather than a persuasively argued and clearly defined challenge.

And that brings me back to the issue of scientific illiteracy. From where I sit, it seems to be a phrase fraught with problems—it reinforces an “us” and “them” mentality, it has the potential to create arbitrary and often meaningless divisions. And, to be frank, it gets some people’s backs up. Joking aside, I could well be labeled “scientifically illiterate” under some measures of literacy. Yet I think I have been somewhat successful in my career as a scientist, policy advisor and communicator. So I struggle with a book so overtly focused on scientific illiteracy. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have done a good job of framing scientific illiteracy in a sophisticated and accessible way. But in the long run, I wonder whether the book would have had greater authority and a longer shelf life if it had made the break from dated concepts, and fully embraced the need for dialogue and engagement when integrating science into society.

So to wrap up – should you read this book? Absolutely. But read it forewarned. Understand where the authors are coming from. Accept that in 132 pages of writing for a general audience you won’t be taken on a deep and intellectually challenging journey. And don’t hesitate to chapter-hop – I particularly liked chapter 2!

And above all, enjoy it – whether you agree with Mooney and Kirshenbaum or not, they are entertaining and talented writers, and Unscientific America is an enjoyable—and not too taxing—read.

Endnotes

About the endnotes in Unscientific America

Although Unscientific America only stretches to 132 pages it is complemented by 66 pages of endnotes, comprising citations and additional comments. I’m not a great fan of this format—especially as the endnotes aren’t cited on the pages they relate to. But it is an extensive resource for those who are interested in delving further into the points Chris and Sheril make.

I do have a problem though where there is extensive commentary included in the endnotes. While reading the book, you have no idea whether a particular idea or comment is fleshed out later on, unless you keep one finger in the endnotes. This is not a comfortable way to read a book! I understand why the book is published this way – it keeps things simple for readers (I almost wrote “scientifically illiterate readers” – slapped wrists for that!). But it isn’t half a pain for anyone seriously interested in what the authors are trying to say.

It’s far better, in my opinion, to ensure that the relevant stuff is incorporated into the main text, not sequestered away where no-one will read it.

More on science and society

Many people have studied the complex interplay between science and society, and reams of work—from the scholarly to the popular—has been written on the subject. To get a good feel for current thinking, I would recommend “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda” by Martin Bauer, Nick Allum and Steve Miller [PDF, 116 KB]. Also check out Matthew Nisbet’s blog, Framing Science, and the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.

And a final comment…

Since it was released several weeks ago, Unscientific America has been the subject of a number of reviews. Although I’ve caught some of the chatter surrounding these, I have made a conscious effort not to read them before writing my own rather belated piece. So hopefully these thoughts are mine, and not simply a regurgitation of other people’s ideas.

Now to see whether what I’ve written is completely out of step with the rest of the blogging world…

Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:20:44 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: The confluence of Coupling, Communication and Control

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

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

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

Notes

Previously: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Next: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Nanotechnology: Ensuring success through safety

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:00:36 +0000

This month’s issue of the magazine Science & Technology takes a closer look at some of the controversies, dilemmas and decisions that will impact on the future development of the science and technology of working at the nanoscale. Amongst the commentaries is a short piece I wrote about the importance of safety in underpinning successful and beneficial nano-enabled technologies:

Science & Technology, June 2009, Page 66

Over the past few years, scientists and engineers have made huge strides in their ability to manipulate materials at the nanometer scale. Tapping into novel properties that emerge when substances are engineered at the nanoscale, they have begun to push conventional technologies further than was previously thought possible. And with this new-found dexterity, they are beginning to develop innovative new technologies that were unimaginable not so long ago. The result is a rapidly emerging toolkit of scientific knowledge and technical expertise that could have profound economic and social impacts around the world; creating jobs and wealth while addressing challenges that range from disease treatment and prevention to renewable energy and clean water.

As with any new technology, however, the promise of nanotechnology comes at a price. When materials are engineered at the scale of atoms and molecules they can behave in unconventional ways—in effect, the rules that apply to non-nanoscale materials begin to break down. This is what makes the technology so powerful. But it raises the possibility of products that can also cause harm in unconventional ways, which may not be captured by the usual approaches to dealing with human health and environmental risks. Unless these unconventional risks are understood and addressed, the future of nanotechnology could be dogged by uncertainties over safety and dwindling public trust.

Not every product of nanotechnology will present unconventional risks. But if a nanoscale substance can get to places in the body or the environment that are normally inaccessible, and is able to elicit a response following exposure that is influenced by shape and form at nanometer dimensions, new questions need to be asked on how harmful the substance is and how it can be used safely. Five years ago, these concerns were raised by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Since then, numerous reports have reiterated and expanded on the challenges being faced to developing safe nanotechnologies. Sadly, there has been substantially more talk than action.

Fortunately, there have been no documented cases of harm arising from exposure to engineered nanomaterials. But an increasing body of research indicates that some of these materials are potentially harmful if used without due care. Yet information is still lacking on what constitutes “due care” in many cases—especially with highly novel substances such as carbon nanotubes. And while global research into the potential health impacts of engineered nanomaterials is increasing, it still falls far short of what is needed to underpin evidence-based decision-making.

Recently, the US National Academies of Science called for a national research strategy for nanotechnology risk research, drawing on the expertise and perspective of multiple stakeholders. Coupled with adequate funding, such an approach could help bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers in developing safe nanotechnologies. Yet at the end of the day, even the best risk research strategies will not be of much use if the end users are suspicious of nanotechnology.

Experiences with genetically modified organisms have demonstrated the power of public opinion in determining whether a new technology succeeds or not. And while the similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs may be slim, it is clear that in today’s hyper-connected world, consumers have an increasingly strong voice. As a result, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety of nanotechnology-based products; public trust in the technology and the ability of government and industry to manage it safely must also be nurtured.

In many ways nanotechnology is a test-case for other emerging technologies. Countries and economies around the world are increasingly dependent on technology innovation. Yet the rules governing success are changing; driven by rapidly evolving global communications, ever-more pressing social and economic challenges, and an increasingly complex knowledge-base. Proactive risk research and public engagement are key not navigating through this changing landscape. Get them wrong and we face lost opportunities. But get them right and there is a chance that nanotechnology—and other emerging technologies—will deliver what they promise.

Originally published in Science & Technology Issue 3, June 2009, pp 66-67

Download the original article [PDF, 312 KB]

Science minister’s question time

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:25:47 +0000

This afternoon, a riveting and possibly ground-breaking conversation evolved in real time on the social media platform Twitter. Yesterday, writer and broadcaster Colin Stuart (@skyponderer on Twitter) raised concerns about the new dual-role of UK Science Minister Lord Drayson – Drayson has just been made Minister of Defense Procurement as part of Gordon Brown’s reshuffle, on top of his duties as Minister of Science. His comment was picked up by PD Smith, an author and reviewer for the Guardian newspaper, and re-tweeted. Things might have ended there. But Lord Drayson himself jumped into the conversation earlier today. And so began a fascinating exchange between Drayson – a regular presence on Twitter – and a number of other Twitter users.

Lord Drayson - UK Minister of Science, Minister of Defense Procurement, and founder of Drayton Racing. Image: Daily Mail

Both Sophia Collins at “I am a scientist. Get me out of here” and PD Smith have blogged on the exchange – read Smith for a concise account of the discussion, and Collins for a more complete rundown of the tweets. .. Looking through the succession of 140 character (or less) messages, this was clearly not a deep debate, nor one that led to marked changes in perspective. But where it scored significantly was in the level of accessibility, transparency and engagement demonstrated by Lord Drayson.

Quoting PD Smith:

I have to admit I was surprised. Actually that’s a serious understatement. I sat in front of the screen for a few minutes wondering if I was seeing things. Don’t Her Majesty’s ministers of state have more urgent matters to attend to than dealing with comments on Twitter by authors? Perhaps it was a practical joke? A fake Lord perhaps?

Here was a senior minister engaging fully with members of the public on science policy. And doing so without (as far as I could tell) being patronizing, unapproachable or stand off-ish.

The result was a clear demonstration of how emerging platforms like Twitter can help increase the level of engagement between decision-makers and the people impacted by their actions.

Of course, there are plenty of kinks still to be ironed out with how Twitter is best used to connect people in important ways. Will we simply see increasingly sophisticated spin promoted under the banners of “engagement” and “transparency?” How will PR folks manage the new accessibility? Is engaging on Twitter less than inclusive? Can you really have engagement in 140 character bites? And what happens when everyone and their dog (or cat) realizes that important people are merely a tweet away?

But despite these questions, today’s conversation demonstrated that Twitter can provide a powerful platform for bringing publics and decision-makers together. And I suspect that it goes further than this; whether we are talking engaging in policy or engaging in science, the platform enables interactions that it’s hard to imagine happening otherwise.

In this sense, Twitter is becoming the global equivalent of the local pub – where social hierarchies are less important than what you say, and how you say it.

Irrespective of the issues discussed, my sense is that Lord Drayson acquitted himself well today by being willing to converse with folk on Twitter. And while no serious issues may have been put to bed, at least they had an airing and people were given a voice. What remains to be seen is whether others learn to use this and similar forums in a similar way and engage with others – whether on politics, science, or any other area that directly affects people.

I guess time and tweets will tell.

Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:00:48 +0000

Part 6 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

The story so far: We are facing an unprecedented confluence of three factors that are forcing us to rethink how we develop and use science and technology to the benefit of society. Coupling between our action’s and the Earth’s re-actions is more significant now than at any previous point in human history. Global Communications are dissolving previously rigid boundaries throughout society at a seemingly ever-increasing rate. And then there’s the third “C” – Control…

Not to put too fine a point on it, control is what science and technology are ultimately about. Science provides the tools for understanding how the world works; technology puts them to use. This is how it’s been for the past 10,000 years. So what’s different now? The answer is that we are finally getting down to being able to manipulate the basic building blocks of matter – atoms and molecules. Over the past 50 years we have made tremendous strides in being able to visualize and engineer materials at near-atomic scales. And by doing so we have opened the door to a vast array of technological advances that were the stuff of dreams just a few decades ago.

In the previous post in this series, I wrote about three defining features of nanoscale control – smallness, strangeness and sophistication. Here, I want to dwell a little more on the third of those – sophistication – as it is likely to underpin some of the more radical advances in science and technology over the next few years.

Three defining characteristics of controlling matter at the nanoscale

Over the past century, synthetic chemistry has changed the world. The ability to systematically combine atoms together to make new molecules has revolutionized the way we live – virtually everything we touch depends on synthesized chemicals in some way. Yet chemists are the first to admit that the number of chemicals that have so far been synthesized is minuscule compared to those just waiting to be discovered and made – although we appear to have had good control over the world of chemicals, we’ve only scratched the surface.

What if we had the tools to splice atoms and molecules together in new and innovative ways? What if we could go beyond text-book chemistry, and invent new molecules that behaved more like nanoscale machines? What if we could create systems of molecules that could self-replicate – just like biological systems, only better? All of these goals are coming within reach as scientists learn how to build new molecules atom by atom.

"Nano car" synthetic molecules, from the lab of Professor Jim Tour at Rice University

A particularly interesting example – more a proof of concept – comes from Professor Jim Tour’s lab at Rice University. Jim was interested in how some biological molecules carry out very physical tasks – like ferrying molecules from one place to another – and wondered whether totally artificial molecules could be invented that behaved in similar ways. The result was a molecule dubbed the nano car. Completely artificial, it consists of four “wheels” made of carbon-60 molecules, attached together with a chassis of organic molecules. What is significant is that the nano cars demonstrate thermally-induced directional motion on a surface – i.e. they are able in principle to ferry a payload of other molecules from point A to point B. Writing in Nanotechnology Law and Business in 2007, Tour noted:

The achievement with the nanocar was significant because it demonstrated for the first time structurally controlled directional movement on a surface due to rolling of the wheels rather than the common non-directional stick-slip motion of molecules on a substrate surface. The next goal of our project was to construct a nanomachine that can convert energy-inputs into controlled motion on a surface.

The nano car attempts to achieve something that occurs all the time in nature by painstakingly controlling how the various molecules that make it up are pieced together. But the example begs a question – if we can begin to replicate what living systems – DNA-based systems – do, through nanoscale control, how much more could be achieved by starting with DNA in the first place? The answer is – rather a lot.

One of the more interesting discoveries in biochemistry over the past several years has been that many molecules in living systems do their stuff on a physical as much as a chemical level. For instance, while the nano cars could potentially move molecules around on a surface, naturally occurring biological molecules exist that do this every day – nature has already evolved incredibly sophisticated systems that operate at the nanoscale. Knowing that natural “molecular motors” exist, scientists have been working hard to create their own biologically-based and biology-inspired motors.

Cartoon of an autonomous molecular motor, courtesy of Andrew Tuberfield.

One such motor is an autonomous “walker” designed and constructed by Andrew Tuberfield’s group at the University of Oxford. The molecule – which is DNA based – is designed to walk along a track constructed from DNA for as long as there is a supply of fuel – provided by a second set of engineered molecules. The idea is similar to that embodied in the nano car – an engineered molecule that mimics some of the features of living systems. But in this case the building blocks used – DNA-based molecules – allow a far more sophisticated device to be constructed. The walker consists of two asymmetric feet attached to a DNA track. Through random thermal motion, these feet are constantly lifting up from the track. However, because of the asymmetry of the molecule, the left foot is uniquely exposed to the surrounding environment when it becomes elevated. at this point, the researchers who designed the system engineered in two rather clever features. First, a purposely designed molecule – H1 in the diagram – attaches to the left foot and removes it from the track as the foot extents. The same cannot happen to the right foot because it is not accessible. Then, a second molecule – H2 – attaches to the H1-foot pair and removes the original H1 molecule, leaving just an unattached foot. At this point, one of two things can happen; the foot either attaches to the left. Or it re-attaches to the right. The probability of either happening is random. But as re-attaching to the left results in the molecule ending up exactly where it started, only re-attachment to the right ends up in the molecule taking a step – and the step is always in the same direction.

By using engineered biological parts and controlling their construction at the nanoscale, the researchers have created a molecule that can move along a predetermined track in a predetermined direction, for as long as track and fuel exist – a Brownian ratchet that converts random motion into directional movement. It may not seem a lot, but it is a tremendous step towards building nanoscale systems that begin to match what biology already does.

But this research raises a yet more intriguing question: If we can use biological parts to make non-biological motors through nanoscale engineering, can we get into the very workings of biology itself? Biology, after all, is built on nanoscale processes – from DNA to the proteins it encodes for. If we could control biology at the atomic and molecular level (and do it well), it would quite possibly one of the most transformative technological moves since the advent of agriculture.

Thirty years ago, the notion of controlling the code of life itself would have been laughable. Now it seems within reach.

The plummeting time to sequence the human genome

Over the past few years, the ease with which genetic code can be sequenced has plummeted. It took 13 years for teams of scientists around the globe to first read the human genome – completing the project in 2001. In 2007, it took 2 months to sequence the genome of DNA-co-discoverer James Watson. And by 2013 it is likely that your personal genome could be read in the time it takes to boil an egg.

Of course, sequencing just reads the information – it doesn’t tell you how to use it. But here’s the important thing – sequencing genomes transforms the information from the physical domain to the digital domain, where it can be experimented with and engineered in new ways. While restricted to the physical world, there were always going to be limitations to how effectively we manipulated and controlled genetic material. In the digital domain, those limitations are gone. Cheap affordable sequencing is ushering in the age of digital biology.

Schematic of the "digitization" of biology

However, playing around with genetic information on computers would be little more than a novelty if it weren’t for one further advance – the plummeting cost of DNA synthesis. This completes the loop between the physical and digital worlds. Now, once you have uploaded your genome into the computer and digitally enhanced it, the technology exists – or soon will – to download the new genome back into reality. It’s a technology that promises to enable an incredibly sophisticated level of genetic engineering. It allows brand new genetic code to be written on the computer, tested out in virtual space, then downloaded back into an organism. It even allows brand new organisms to be designed and created from scratch.

This possibility was pushed home last year when Craig Venter’s team synthesized the genome of a bacterium – Mycobacterium genitalium – from scratch. The team has yet to insert the synthesized DNA into a cell, and thus achieve – in effect – the creation of life form laboratory chemicals. But it seems only a matter of time before this is achieved.

January 2008 - Craig Venter's team synthesize the complete genome of a new organism from scratch

We’re not quite there yet with the technology that will allow us to manipulate biology at the nanoscale. But it’s coming. And when it does, the level of control we have had over matter for the past ten centuries will seem like child’s play.

Throw this level of potential control into the mix with the other two “C’s,” and you have all the ingredients for a step-change in what we can do, and what the consequences are – for good and for bad.

Next time: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

Notes

Previously: Control at the nanoscale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication.

Next: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

Cultural smokescreens

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:59:20 +0000

50 years on, have we missed the point of C.P. Snow’s “Two-cultures?”

50 years ago, long before Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme,” the British scientist, public figure and novelist Charles Percy Snow planted an idea into the collective consciousness that has since grown to have a profound influence on science and the arts in Western society. Sadly, it wasn’t the idea he necessarily wanted to plant. So while the relevance of Snow’s “two cultures”—representing the divide between the scientific and literary elite of the day—has been debated and deconstructed ad infinitum over the intervening decades, Snow’s real passion—tackling material poverty through science and technology—has largely been ignored…

In 1963, Snow wrote a follow-on piece to the 1959 lecture. In “Two cultures: A second look” C.P. Snow addressed the concerns of his many critics. But he also took the opportunity to clarify and expand on what he was trying to convey four years earlier. Freed from the constraints of crafting a short and somewhat simple public lecture, he wrote compellingly on science’s place in society, and the absolute necessity of using it for the social good—something he only saw the cultural divides around him obstructing.

In the opening sections of the 1963 essay Snow addresses his critics directly, which he does with humility and wit. But by section five he begins to get to the heart of his true passion for science and technology:

“We cannot know as much as we should about the social conditions all over the world. But we can know, we do know, two most important things. First we can meet the harsh facts of the flesh, on the level where all of us are, or should be, one. We know that the vast majority, perhaps two-thirds, of our fellow men are living in the immediate presence of illness and premature death; their expectation of life is half of ours, most are under-nourished, many are near to starving, many starve. Each of these lives is afflicted by suffering, different from that which is intrinsic in the individual condition. But this suffering is unnecessary and can be lifted. This is the second important thing which we know—or, if we don’t know it, there is no excuse or absolution for us.”

Snow acknowledged that there is more to the human condition than mere material needs. But he argued that this does not release us from the obligation to address those needs—his “hard facts of the flesh”—nor the fact that science and technology provide the means to do this. He pushes this point home:

“We cannot avoid the realization that applied science has made it possible to remove unnecessary suffering from a billion individual human lives—to remove suffering of a kind, which, in our own privileged society, we have largely forgotten, suffering so elementary that it is not genteel to mention it.”

This gets to the very heart of the essay, and the intended thrust of the 1959 lecture. So much so that he admits “Before I wrote the [1959] lecture I thought of calling it “The Rich and the Poor”, and I rather wish that I hadn’t changed my mind.”

From here, Snow begins to tackle the myth of the “ennobling” nature of suffering—the idea that suffering strengthens a person, and to interfere in the “natural order” of “master and man” is to do those who suffer a disservice. Snow is ruthless in his attack on those supporting this position—many of them, in his eyes, amongst the comfortably off cultural elite “who have climbed one step up and are hanging on by their fingernails.”

Just as ruthlessly, he exposes the romantic myth of life being better before science and technology shook things up. Quoting J.H. Plumb he writes:

“No one in his sense would choose to have been born in a previous age unless he could be certain that he would have been born into a prosperous family, that he would have enjoyed extremely good health, and that he could have accepted stoically the death of the majority of his children.”

Rather, he writes

“It seems to me better that people should live rather than die: that they shouldn’t be hungry: that they shouldn’t have to watch their children die.”

From Snow’s perspective, attempts to justify the status quo and look back at “better times” were misguided and divisive, often reflecting the attitudes of the wealthy who could afford to romanticize suffering. Rather, the solution he saw to satisfying society’s material needs was—and had to be in his eyes—science. Without the scientific revolution, the only alternative was a divided society where a suffering majority supported an affluent minority—a concept Snow clearly found abhorrent.

And as a consequence, anything which impeded the successful development and implementation of science in society needed to be addressed head-on.

In 1959, Snow saw the chasm between the scientific and intellectual elite as one such impediment. It was a problem unique (from his perspective) to the British establishment, and arose from an education system that inhibited understanding between these worlds and, as a consequence, weakened the ability of science to be used for the social good. This was the thinking behind the public lecture he delivered on May 7 1959 in Cambridge England.

Fifty years on, a lot has changed. Approaches to education are different. There is extensive and productive cross-talk between the science and the arts. And national and global cultures have evolved. Yet the central problem Snow faced remains: we live in a world divided into the rich and the poor; where the majority of people don’t have access to necessary material needs—food, water, shelter, medical treatment; where science and technology are increasingly able to bridge this divide, if only they were used effectively. The unfortunate irony is that, by using the two cultures as a light to illuminate the problems facing society, Snow ended up creating a smokescreen that has, if anything, helped to obscure them.

The reality is that Snow’s 1959 lecture and 1963 essay are even more relevant now than they were 50 years ago—not because of the culture issues they address, but because in a society that is increasingly dependent on science and technology, we still haven’t got a good grasp on how to use them to make life better for the poor as well as the rich.

Sadly, the two cultures meme is a powerful one—witness the editorials, publications and events surrounding this 50th anniversary of the 1959 lecture. But perhaps now’s time to put it aside and start talking about what’s really important, not just what we think is important. Because if you look forward through the next 50 years, we have some pretty large global challenges rolling our way that aren’t going to be solved by talking about cultural differences alone.

Obama’s science and technology call to arms

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:08:56 +0000

Just in case anyone wasn’t clear, President Obama blew away any residual doubts this morning that he considers science and technology supremely important to the future well-being of the US. In a stirring and historic speech to the National Academies of Science (audio recording available here), Obama laid out his vision for a nation leading the world in science and technology, not following it.

At the heart of the speech, a commitment to devoting more than 3% of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product to science research, along with new initiatives to ensure better science technology and math education, greater opportunities to translate basic research into socially-relevant innovation, and and a call to the science community to engage with and inspire the next generation of scientists, technologists and engineers.

This was clearly a call to arms to the science, technology and engineering communities to re-establish the US as a leader rather than follower in an increasingly technology-dependent world, backed up with strong commitments to make this happen… Energy took center stage – the grand challenge this generation faces to combat “carbon pollution” and create clean energy solutions. But much of the speech concerned how to get there – ensuring the creation of “scientific capital” through basic research, enabling the translation of new knowledge to innovative solutions, and providing an educated and skilled workforce to do the job.

This was a speech with substance, crafted to appeal to an highly appreciative science audience. But the messages clearly reflect a far greater commitment to building the foundations of a successful and sustainable science and technology-based society. It wasn’t so much “ensuring science takes its rightful place” as “scientists – take your rightful place… and here are some things to help you on your way.”

I’m 100% with Obama on the need for sophisticated and well-supported science and technology policies. As I’ve written before, it is inconceivable that many of the global challenges facing society over the next few decades can be addressed without more advanced technologies – along with a good understanding of how to use them – than we have now. And what we heard today is a critical step in the right direction. Importantly, Obama has elevated science and technology to a central position in his policies, and has provided the tools to make them work for society.

But there is still an awfully long way to go. Science and technology won’t lead to socially relevant solutions simply by throwing money and good ideas at them. Effective policies will need to reflect an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how science and technology innovation work, and the evolving role of Earth’s 6 billion and growing citizens in determining the future course of technology-based solutions to pressing problems.

The initiatives announced by Obama today go some way to addressing these challenges, although I suspect more is needed. Emerging policies still seem to be based on the dichotomy between basic and applied research set in place by Vannevar Bush 50 years ago, despite increasing realization that this is a misleading perspective on how best to nurture innovation in science and technology. And there is still a misplaced sense that the key to engagement is education – filling in people’s knowledge gaps so they can see the world through science-focused eyes.

Yet despite these wrinkles, Obama has clearly placed the US on the right track if it is to lead the world in developing science and technology solutions that work – not just for now, but for decades and even centuries to come.

Geoengineering goes mainstream

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:51:14 +0000

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.

Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:55:43 +0000

Part 2 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

In the previous post in this series I introduced the idea of the three “C’s:” Coupling Communication and Control—three factors that together challenge conventional ideas on how science and technology are best developed and used within society. Following on from that introduction, I want to focus more closely on the first of these: Coupling.

I haven’t actually got much to say here that is new or unfamiliar—most of the new stuff will probably come when I reach the third “C”—Control. In fact, the concepts buried in the idea of coupling are somewhat obvious. But that doesn’t make them any less significant.

Very simply, coupling refers to the interconnectedness between society’s actions and global environmental re-actions…

Up until recently, it was assumed that the world was so large, and humanity so small, that whatever we did would simply be absorbed by the Earth. Oceans, the atmosphere, the planet, were so massive that at worst our actions would cause minor blips in the system, which would dissipate over time.

We now know that this is not the case. There is a complex dynamic between people and the Earth that has existed for millennia. But this coupling wasn’t apparent while the global population was relatively low and resource demands less excessive.

In the past, the lag between human actions and environmental reactions tended to be long and resulting changes gradual. This is no longer the case. The global population will hit 7 billion people in a few years—fifty years ago it was less than half this. And resource demands per capita have rocketed while supplies have not, meaning that today’s 6 billion people are stressing the system to a far greater extent than a mere doubling of the population would suggest.

The result is a closer coupling between out actions and the Earth’s reactions than ever before in the history of humanity. The current implications of this ever-closer coupling are clear, and include all the usual suspects: Increasing global pollution, acidification of the oceans, rising CO2 levels, global warming.

This coupling is getting stronger, the time lag between actions and responses is getting shorter, and the challenges of predicting and responding to society-induced changes are getting increasingly complex.

And because we are part of the system, these global changes are in turn affecting us—coupling works both ways.

Basic physics provides a simple illustration of this. I was in two minds about showing the video below because, lets face it, its less than polished (you’ll see what I mean if you watch it). But it does illustrate the coupling issue rather neatly—as long as the analogy isn’t stretched too far.

Coupled oscillators as an illustration of coupling between society and the Earth

What you see are a pair of coupled oscillators—cobbled together from garden twine and two Orangina bottles. Together, they demonstrate a physics phenomenon where energy is transferred back and forth between two identical oscillating systems—pendulums in this case.

The experiment starts off with just one of the pendulums swinging. The second seems to barely move, no matter what the first does. But over time, the second pendulum begins to be affected by the first one, and starts to oscillate with ever-larger swings. Then as the second pendulum gets into its stride, it begins in turn to drive the first one. And so the cycle goes.

The analogy to humanity and the Earth is obvious. Our actions have seemed inconsequential in the past, but they inevitably lead to environmental re-actions. These in turn end up impacting back on us. The analogy does fall apart rather quickly if pushed too far. But it’s a useful reminder that there is two-way feedback between our actions and the environment we live in, and that over time our actions come back to haunt us unless we proceed with care.

This coupling is cumulative, it is non-linear, and it is increasing rapidly as our demands on the planet grow. Which means that the consequences of what we do, and the global impacts of those consequences, are becoming harder to predict and control.

Managing this coupling will take all of our skill, and will not be possible without significant advances in science and technology. Which is why no discussion of science and technology and their role in society can afford to neglect it.

But the story doesn’t end there. Growing global demands are strengthening the coupling between people and the planet. But other factors are also playing into this complex relationship; magnifying the challenges emerging in an already serious situation. One of these factors is the rapid evolution of global communications systems, which is shaking up how information and ideas flow around the globe.

This virtual coupling between people will be the focus of the next post in this series.

Notes

Previously: Science, technology and the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control

Next: Communication: Science and technology in a connected world

New life, old bottles: The video

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:13:00 +0000

A five-minute primer on the promise and challenge of first-generation synthetic biology

As an addendum to the previous post on synthetic biology, the following interview from the Wilson Center provides a great overview of what synthetic biology is all about, and the potential challenges of ensuring its safe development and use:

For more information, check out the Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Are we ready for synthetic biology?

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:00:42 +0000

A new report looks at the challenges of regulating first generation products of synthetic biology.

At the J. Craig Venter Institute, scientists are on the verge of creating a living organism from “dead” chemicals, by rebooting a microbe with a new—and completely artificially constructed—genome.

At the University of California Berkeley, researchers are modifying microbes to act as highly efficient chemical plants, by rewriting their DNA.

In Cambridge Massachusetts, amateur biologists are scoring cheap laboratory equipment off eBay and Craigs List, and constructing their own designer bugs.

While all over the world, hundreds of enthusiastic undergraduates are competing to systematically design and build new DNA-based biological systems and get them operating in living cells.

Synthetic biology—the systematic engineering of biological organisms from the DNA up—is a reality now, and is destined to grow into an incredibly powerful transformative technology over the next few years.

But can we handle it?

In amidst the many questions our accelerating ability to manipulate DNA raises is one of oversight: Are government agencies equipped to ensure the safety of new synthetic biology-related products and processes?

A new report by Mike Rodemeyer—formerly Executive Director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology—addresses exactly this question. Commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, New life, old bottles takes a critical look at regulating the first-generation products of synthetic biology.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Rodemeyer concludes that once you peer under the hood (so to speak), there’s not a lot from a regulatory perspective that differentiates first generation synthetic biology from more traditional recombinant DNA (rDNA)-based technology. Which means that where things work for rDNA, they look pretty good for synbio.

Of course, this also means that where oversight of traditional biotech is flaky, things aren’t likely to be any easier for synthetic biology.

However, the report also suggests that synthetic biology may have the potential to stretch an already stressed system to breaking point at some point in the future. As it is, traditional biotechnology was shoehorned into a regulatory system within the US that was developed long before the practical consequences of DNA manipulation were understood. As a result (for example), genetically engineered organisms are currently regulated as new chemical substances by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Just in case you didn’t catch that: in simple terms, the DNA within a genetically modified organism is legally considered to be a new chemical, and thus is regulated as such. An elegant solution to fitting new technology into old rules, but one that may find run out of steam rather rapidly as synthetic biology hits its stride.

And the current regulatory framework doesn’t even begin to touch on developments that lie outside its traditional sphere of control—including a growing “biohacking” community.

Rodemeyer’s piece is more about setting out the issues and posing questions than providing solutions. And it does this extremely well. If you want aan excellent description of what synthetic biology is all about, the regulatory framework within which it is developing, or the challenges it presents to that framework, this is the report to read. It’s clear, it’s accessible, and it’s highly readable.

But if you insist on an overarching take-home message, it would be this (and these are my words, not his):

We are on the brink of a revolution in biotechnology that will make old biotech look like the fumblings of a toddler. And while we may have got away with squeezing new tech into old regulatory bottles in the past, this approach isn’t going to work for much longer! Rather, if synthetic biology is to grow into a mature, safe and accepted technology, some regulatory rethinking will be needed.

The old bottles, it seems, will last us a little longer. But at some point they are going to burst at the seams. And what then, if we don’t have bigger, better, more flexible containers handy?

Science, technology and the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:18:32 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Previously: Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Next: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

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

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:40:22 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science, society and the Second Enlightenment

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:00:44 +0000

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 ☺)

Revisiting the Civic Scientist

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:27:43 +0000

Reading through the various science and technology offerings on the web this morning, I was struck by a conversation between Houston Chronicle reporter Eric Berger and Neal Lane, former National Science Foundation director and science advisor to President Clinton. Not surprisingly, towards the top of the conversation is President Obama’s commitment to “restore science to its rightful place” and what this might mean. But before this, Neal raises something that he has championed for many years now, and one that I suspect is more than ready for a new lease of life as science and policy come together under the new administration to tackle a tough portfolio of challenges—the concept of the civic scientist.

Civic scientists—according to Lane—are those scientists and engineers who “step beyond their campuses, laboratories, and institutes and into the center of their communities to engage in active dialogue with their fellow citizens.” This is more than science communication; it’s a two-way dialogue between people who generate knowledge, and people are impacted by that knowledge—whether in the decisions they make, or the decisions other make.

Although it’s fashionable to talk about science communication these days—witness the just-launched “Science: So what? So everything” campaign in the UK—the idea of the civic scientist as originally conceived has languished somewhat in recent years… Maybe bad memories of “civics” at school are the problem. Maybe the political climate of the past eight years hasn’t favored a more integrated perspective of science in society. Or maybe scientists just need a little more encouragement to place their work in a social context. Whatever the reason, the idea of scientists engaging on broader social issues isn’t as widely lauded as is perhaps should be.

As the new Obama administration works out what science’s rightful place is, and governments around the world grapple with increasingly complex global challenges—climate change, energy, water, food, poverty, equity between developed and developing nations, and a whole host of other issues—it is critical that science, technology and engineering are an integral part of the solutions. But the old model of a one-way flow of information from science to society will not—cannot—work. Instead, we need something far closer to Lane’s ideas on science and social responsibility.

In 1999, Neal Lane published “The Civic Scientist and Science Policy” in the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook. In it, he clearly articulates why a new generation of “civic scientists” is necessary—not just in policy circles, but throughout society. This, to my mind, should be required reading for anyone involved in scientific research.

Speaking to research scientists and engineers, Lane notes that

“Although scientist and nonscientist alike can marvel at the power of our knowledge in science and technology, it is the intersection of this knowledge with the goals and needs of society that is our larger responsibility. Understanding this crossroads of knowledge and needs and then acting on behalf of society will present our most challenging task.”

It is the civic scientist, Lane contents, who will be most effective at this intersection. And to clarify this role, he asks

“Do I mean that we go out and teach science to shopkeepers, lawyers, consultants, and construction workers? Not entirely. To engage in dialogue is to listen as well as to speak. While there is great need for the public to have a better understanding of science, and we should promote this in every way possible, there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”

Let me just repeat that last bit because I think it’s important, reminding you that this is a distinguished scientist writing: “there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”

How many times do scientists feel that their role is to lecture, not to listen? Yet clearly there is a need for a two-way dialogue if science is to be a part of addressing social challenges.

Developing these ideas, Lane writes:

“We are all aware that the advancement of civilization has, in many respects, been driven by the scientific and technological research of each succeeding generation. We so frequently hear and use the phrase “science and society” that perhaps it has become a cliché. I think we would agree that this phrase has meant that science has “a relationship with” or “a role in” society. Within this context, the world scientific community has unraveled many of the secrets of nature, and of its many life forms.

“We would agree that science is a force absolutely fundamental to our well-being and, in fact, survival. Science and society are interdependent. We are only slowly coming to recognize that science and engineering must be seriously concerned with the many and great unsolved problems of humankind.

“I have frequently pointed out that we are able to do increasingly outstanding research at the same time that many societal disparities and problems are also increasing. Although the long-held professional goals of teaching and research are noble and significant, perhaps they are not enough. Nor is it sufficient for those of us who have chosen public service on behalf of science and engineering to simply keep the research enterprise healthy and balanced, as vitally important as that is. A further goal for all of us must be to understand the physical, moral, and social problems that hold our civilization in the grip of numerous contradictions.”

There follows an exploration of the role science has within society. In particular, Lane highlights three challenges that loomed large ten years ago:

“We know that energy, environment, and economics form the triumviral challenge of the coming century; they are inextricably wedded. If we are able to develop such new technical capabilities, they will, by their very nature, create cultural changes in energy use, economic development, and environmental protection. Developing such technical capabilities with their economic potential will require that our researchers continue to push back the frontiers of virtually every field of science and technology.”

Ten years on, and these same challenges are looming ever larger.

Lane concludes

“As we think about creating a complex global problem-solving agenda, we must first acknowledge that it is surely the greatest challenge the world scientific and engineering community could be asked to undertake. It will engage all fields from physics to psychology, from economics to biology, from electrical engineering to sociology. And in the long run it will require more than science and engineering. Policymakers will be crucial to any and all solutions.

“Science and technology and public policy empower each other’s goals. In contemporary society, neither could be appropriately effective without being a partner-participant with the other.

“Scientists and engineers cannot be expected to solve the vast societal problems from within their own professional community. On the other hand, few, if any, of these problems could be solved without the science community’s knowledge and skill base as a foundation. Intelligent public policy helps lead us toward the cultural and institutional change required to meet these needs. Only with a combination of the two can we hope to succeed.

“We could, with some legitimacy, declare the task too great, too complex, and thus too impossible. Many of us might be inclined to view these real-world dynamic systems as chaotic to a large power, without any “attractors” (strange or otherwise). There were many who said the same about the concept of the United Nations. But there were some who said this will not be easy, but we cannot risk not trying.

“The 21st century presents daunting challenges and extraordinary opportunities. If we accept those challenges and recognize those opportunities we will not only advance the frontiers of science but also address the great unsolved problems of humanity.

In the final analysis, this larger engagement does not mean a focused or fixed research agenda. It does mean openness to new research challenges and unprecedented partnerships among diverse fields and interests. It does mean a commitment to effective communication of knowledge, and connections between discovery and the use of new knowledge in service to society. And it especially means placing a high priority on education and learning for all youngsters wherever they begin their lives.”

The only things of substance that have changed between when Neal Lane wrote this in 1999 and now are the scale and magnitude of the challenges we face nationally and globally. In this context, perhaps it’s time to revisit his idea of the civic scientist, and put renewed effort into developing a generation of scientists, engineers and technologists who understand how to use their skills in the service of society.

Welcome to the new-look 2020 Science

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:57:19 +0000

If you are a regular visitor to 2020 Science, you may have noticed some changes creeping into the site in recent days. The content’s still the same—a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsibly, with an emphasis on nanotechnology and synthetic biology (and anything else that piques my interest). But hopefully the new layout and format make reading it a more pleasurable and productive experience.

If you don’t like the changes, blame Ruth Seeley at No Spin PR—she’s the one who is sucking me into putting the blog on a more professional footing!

Actually, that’s not at all fair—Ruth is helping develop a social networking strategy for 2020 Science (and doing a great job of it), and the changes have been prompted in part by the need to move the site to a new web host as we begin implementing the strategy. And so far, the changes enabled by the move are rather exciting. Not only does the website now look substantially better, but I can actually start playing around with WordPress plug-ins—geek heaven!

I’ll be refining the site further over the coming weeks, but in the meantime here’s a quick rundown on the more significant changes you should check out:

Quick access to nanotechnology and synthetic biology posts. Simply clicking on the relevant tab in the page header will take you to all blog posts on that subject.

Subscribe button. Actually, you’ve always been able to subscribe to 2020 Science, but this is such a neat feature I thought a reminder was due. And the button now takes you to Feedburner, to make life even easier.

Twitter feed. This is where recent 2020 Science “Tweets” are posted (do other Twitter users cringe as much as I do at the terminology here?) – check this column out for breaking news and comment on emerging science and technology, and beyond–it’s usually updated several times a day.

Top Notes. Stuff that I think is worth highlighting—expect the content to change frequently.

Lots of lovely links. Now broken down into what are hopefully helpful categories, this is a growing list of links to other blogs and websites that I enjoy reading and find useful – located towards the bottom of the right hand sidebar.

“Share this” button. If you like a blog post, please share it with your friends—it’s now as easy as pie with the neat ShareThis link on each entry.

Technorati button. If you like 2020 Science, it’s now easy to add it to your Technorati favorites – simply click the button in the sidebar.

Resources tab. In the header—this is where you can find links to lectures I’ve given, stuff I’ve published, and media articles where I’ve been quoted. Probably not interesting for most people, but the stuff’s there, just in case.

That’s pretty much it for the moment. Next blog: back to the business of writing about “important” stuff.

Enjoy.

(And please don’t forget to comment!)

A red-letter day for science and technology

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:20:19 +0000

As Barack Obama takes the oath and is inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States, many are anticipating a new era of socially relevant science and technology. Having run one of the most technologically savvy campaigns in recent times—possibly ever—Obama’s transition teams continued to break new ground in using technology up open up the process of government. And throughout the campaign and transition, there has been an emphasis on scientific integrity, and using science and technology in the service of society.

The trick is going to be to maintain this momentum in the new administration. Obama has surrounded himself with a top-notch group of science and technology advisors, and this, combined with a desire to get science and technology back on track, bodes well for the new Presidency. As BBC News reported this morning, scientists are optimistic that Obama has what it takes to reposition science and technology within government and society. And yesterday’s USA Today noted that “Scientists are hopeful that Obama, who has called for increased research spending, will bring a new dawn [to science].”

Of course, realizing the promise of a new scientific dawn will not be easy… Where will the money come from? What should the top priorities be? Will robust long-term science strategies be established? How will citizens be effectively engaged in the science and technology enterprise?

The USA Today piece explores some of these concerns (and does it well), and in the weeks and months to come, these and other issues will be aired more fully as the euphoria of Obama’s election dies down and reality sets.

But today, it’s time to celebrate the inauguration of a new president who has repeatedly emphasized the importance of science and technology for everyone.

On that note, rather than continuing to pompously pontificate on science and technology in the new administration, I’m going to sit back and enjoy the historic events of the day.

And in the spirit of a social media-savvy [soon not to be] president-elect, I will be eschewing the crowds of DC, and following the inauguration on the web. You can follow 2020science and others on Twitter as the day proceeds—just use the tag #inaug09.

Have a great inauguration day!

____________________________________

A note on the image.

I’ve been looking for an excuse to use the Nanobama image since it hit the headlines some weeks back. The image, made by John Hart, Sameh Tawfick, Michael De Volder, and Will Walker, was constructed from an etched “forest” of carbon nanotubes. Given the science and technology focus of the new administration, this seemed a great reminder of the potential of emerging technologies, and the challenges of translating that potential into safe and successful solutions to real issues.

Five more good books

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:26:03 +0000

Science gone right, science gone wrong, science gone social, science gone political—it’s all here in five off-beat book recommendations to kick off 2009. Ranging from Darwin’s Origin of Species to Sir Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the one thing I think I can guarantee is that you will struggle to find an odder bunch of literary bed-fellows! Hope you enjoy them, and have a happy new year!

A new year, a new leaf—time for five more eclectic (some might say eccentric) book recommendations to see you through the hangover and into a brighter future.

As in the previous five good books blog, I’ve eschewed the conventional to provide as unusual a potpourri of literary delights as you will find anywhere. And as before, I’ve tried to inject a little method into the madness—spot it if you can!

I should first apologize because this was supposed to be a quick blog, rushed off before the New Years festivities began in earnest. But it turned into a veritable “slow blog!”

So for those of you impatient to read the recommendations and move on, here they are:

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow
Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham
Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee
Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett

But please do read on, and discover the why behind the what… Here then, is my retrospective-prospective reading list for a technologically-enlightened 2009—enjoy!

In the number one slot: On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. How could it be anything else? Perhaps one of the most influential books to have been written over the past couple of hundred years, the repercussions of Darwin’s seminal work are still being felt today. 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (as if you didn’t know)—and what better excuse to go back to the source and read what the great man really wrote in what he refers to as “this abstract”—and some abstract at nearly 500 pages!

Unlike much of the debate and controversy it initiated, Origin is a carefully developed and reasoned thesis based on Darwin’s observations—evidence-based science at its best. And rather impressively, the more we learn about life on this planet, the more Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes sense.

This is essential reading for understanding how disruptive and empowering scientific knowledge can be within society. As society comes to rely increasingly on science and technology, there are lessons here that are well worth learning. The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859. It’s hard to imagine a science text selling so fast nowadays. Which makes you think—in all the talk about how essential technology and innovation are in today’s knowledge economy, have we lost sight of the underlying science? I wonder…

Next up, another anniversary and another highly influential book. On May 7 1959, Charles Percy Snow—better know as C. P. Snow—delivered the annual Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge. His title: The Two Cultures. The lecture—and its subsequent appearance in print—caught the spirit of the moment as two cultures; one dominated by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists; grew increasingly detached from each other and threatened to rob society of it’s ability to progress.

Snow’s thoughts have moulded thinking about science and society over the intervening 50 years. But just as few who uphold or decry Darwinian evolution have read the original text, I suspect that not many who talk “knowledgeably” about the two cultures are that familiar with what the man actually said.

Having recently revisited the lecture, I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the interface between science and society to read it. The lecture is clearly of its time—society has changed since 1959. Yet scrape away at the surface, and many of the themes in the lecture are as relevant now as they were fifty years ago—negligible communication between the world of science and “traditional culture,” disrespect for science literacy (as distinct from technology familiarity), and the importance of ensuring the scientific revolution breaks down socially indefensible barriers—especially between the rich and the poor.

Today the cultures are different, and the boundaries between them blurred. But the bottom line is that we are more dependent than ever on science in society, yet more ignorant than ever on how science works, and how to use it wisely.

If Darwin demonstrated how disruptive science can be, Snow illuminated how essential it is to harness and use its disruptive power for good within society—or suffer the consequences.

As an aside, even more significant (in my opinion) than the original Rede lecture is Snow’s 1963 assessment of the lecture’s impact. In The Two Cultures: A Second Look, C.P. Snow finds the freedom to explain more clearly what he was really getting at in the lecture. Here he explains the use of the “two cultures” as a vehicle to explore far more profound aspects of the science-society relationship—many just as important yet overlooked today as they were then. Quoting from the beginning of the essay:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture. Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their intellectual concern. This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life. It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future. It is making it difficult or impossible for us to take good action.”

Read these essays—they are important!

Third in the list comes something a little lighter: Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham. Published in 1960—right on the coat-tails of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures—it is a fictitious tale of a scientific discovery leading to longer lives for a select few, and the social and moral challenges this raises.

Admittedly, the book is dated—it was written nearly fifty years ago after all. But it’s still a great read. And more importantly, it raises questions about the development and use of disruptive scientific knowledge that are highly relevant to today.

The story revolves around the discovery of a lichen-based compound that can extend a person’s lifespan by a factor of three. But the compound cannot be synthesized, and the source is limited. The moral questions raised are complex—longer life expectancy could lead to a more reflective society, more time to find solutions to pressing problems, greater quality of life. But it could also lead to social injustice—widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and initiate social unrest.

The context may be very 1960’s, but the general issues resonate strongly with challenges facing society today as science and technology become increasingly complex. And just as society was ill-equipped to handle disruptive science back in the 1960’s, it must be asked whether we are any better off now.

The fourth book in this list of five is something of an outsider—Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee. 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this account of village life in rural England in the early twentieth century—anniversaries emerging as something of a theme here. Most of the book has nothing to do with science and technology. But it is worth reading for two reasons:

First, it is a beautifully crafted account of pre-industrial revolution English village life—I guarantee it will fill you for nostalgia, even if you have never seen an English village!

But more to the point, Lee begins to chart the enormous changes wrought on this thousand year old way of life by the industrial revolution—what Snow referred to as the beginnings of the scientific revolution we are still in. If you get the chance, read the final chapter of the book. While Lee is ambivalent on whether the changes he witnessed over the course of his youth were for good or ill, you cannot help but reflect on where the scientific revolution is leading us as you absorb his prose.

To whet your appetite, this is from the beginning of the final chapter:

“The last days of my childhood were also the last days of the village. I belonged to that generation which saw, by chance, the end of a thousand years’ life. The change came late on our Costwold valley, didn’t really show itself till the late 1920’s; I was twelve by then, but during that handful of years I witnessed the whole thing happen.

“Myself, my family, my generation, were born in a world of silence; a world of hard work and necessary patience, of backs bent to the ground, hands massaging the crops, of waiting on weather and growth; of villages like ships in the empty landscapes and the long walking distances between them; of white narrow roads, rutted by hooves and cart-wheels, innocent of oil or petrol, down which people passed rarely, and almost never for pleasure, and the horse was the fastest thing moving. Man and horse were all the power we had—abetted by levers and pulleys. But the horse was king, and almost everything grew around him: fodder, smithies, stables, paddocks, distances, and the rhythms of our days. His eight miles an hour was the limit of our movements, as it had been since the days of the Romans. That eight miles an hour was life and death, the size of our world, our prison.”

Then came cars and machines and science and technology…

Lee’s eloquent prose demonstrates just how disruptive science and technology innovation is. The innovation can lead to both good and bad—both Lee and Snow clearly acknowledge this. The trick it would seem—the moral imperative even—is to act to ensure the good outweighs the bad.

Last but most definitely not least comes another novel, and a real gem of a book: Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

(yes, Terry has just received a well-deserved “K”.)

A word of warning up front: This is a grown-up book masquerading as a child’s story. So you might at first dismiss it. But you do so at your peril, for Pratchett weaves an enlightening and challenging tale about science, society and religion that succeeds where many academic tomes have failed.

The story revolves around a young boy living on a Pacific island who looses his whole community to a tsunami, but ends up building a new one from the flotsam and jetsam of society that wash up on the shores. This seemingly simple setting allows Pratchett to explore the barriers between races, cultures, philosophies, religion and science, and what can be achieved when these are broken down.

The tale is set in a parallel world, which rather delightfully enables Pratchett to bend the history of science somewhat, and the activities of some of its leading lights. There is a beautiful homage to the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Patrick Moore in the closing pages!

But the power of this book—and it is powerful—comes from Pratchett’s knack of shining a searing spotlight on the human condition in the most gentle and humorous of ways.

Nation covers may themes, one of which is the foolishness of blind belief. Of course, this includes religious beliefs in the book. But it also extends to scientific “beliefs.” And there is a clear message here for societies facing a science and technology-dominated future: Learn from the past, respect evidence, and communicate across barriers.

To wrap up, while this is an odd set of recommended reading by anyone’s reckoning, hopefully the thread holding the list together is clear—addressing the challenges and opportunities of science and technology within society. Writing on the brink of 2009, science and technology innovation seem more important than ever. Yet we seem further than ever in understanding how to ensure everyone benefits from advances that are made.

Hopefully revisiting (or visiting for the first time) these books will provide a new perspective on making wise choices over the coming year.

Happy reading, and happy 2009!

_________________________

Footnotes, added 1/1/09

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is currently available in many imprints – check out Amazon.com for further details.

The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow, is currently published by Cambridge University Press (in the Canto series). This edition includes both the 1959 lecture, the 1963 essay, and an excellent introduction by Stefan Collini.

Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham was recently re-released by Penguin Books UK. US readers will need to explore that archaic institution the Library… or pay for international shipping!

Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee, is currently published in the US by David R. Godine. In the UK, the publisher is Random House.

Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett, is published by Random House in the UK, and HarpurCollins in the US.

For more on the “slow blog,” check out Todd Sieling’s Slow Blog Manifesto!

A "manifesto" for socially-relevant science and technology

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:36:15 +0000

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

Obama – staking out a science and technology presidency

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:57:47 +0000

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/]

John Holdren – Obama’s new science advisor?

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:56:16 +0000

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

Why clever people believe stupid things

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:32:40 +0000

Making sense of scientific information

While I was in the UK recently, I picked up a copy of Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science on a tip from a friend. Ben is a medical doctor and writer for The Guardian newspaper—and a vociferous crusader of what he sees as the misuse and misrepresentation of science. And when he comes to communicating why science matters in a highly accessible way, he has few peers.

If you read my recent “Five Good Books” blog, you will already have seen a micro-review of Bad Science, which can be summed up pretty succinctly in three words: “buy this book.”

Bad Science is a great read… which is probably why it topped the popular science charts in the UK when it first came out (although I should caution that despite it being endorsed as “quite possibly the funniest” book you’ll read this year, it is more likely to leave you incensed at the blatant and dangerous abuse of science in some quarters).

It is also an essential read for anyone in the business of making science-informed decisions.

And in this context, there is one chapter in particular that should be compulsory reading matter for anyone involved in generating, interpreting or using scientific information.

This is chapter 12: “Why clever people believe stupid things.”

The chapter is prefaced rather fittingly by a quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig:

“The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasn’t mislead you into thinking you know something that you actually don’t know.”

As Goldacre explains “When we reason informally—call it intuition if you like—we use rules of thumb which simplify the problems for the sake of efficiency.” But these short-cuts are vulnerable to misdirection—we can be fooled into thinking reality is other than it is.

The problem is, we have no internal reference for what is real. When we get something wrong and the consequences are obvious, we self-correct pretty fast. But where the consequences of misunderstandings are not direct or are not clear, things get more difficult—especially as we are hard-wired not to question our perceptions of reality.

So how do we know when we are deluding ourselves (and as a consequence, making potentially dangerous decisions)? The answer, argues Goldacre, is in the scientific method—because it provides a systematic approach to testing our assumptions and correcting our perceptions. Goldacre writes:

“When our cognitive system—our truth-testing apparatus—is fooled, then, much like seeing depth in a flat painting, we come to erroneous conclusions about abstract things. We might misidentify normal fluctuations as meaningful patterns, for example, or ascribe causality where in fact there is none.

“These are cognitive illusions, a parallel to optical illusions. They can be just as mind-boggling, and they cut to the core of why we do science.”

Goldacre goes on to identify five traps people fall into when evaluating information which lead to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and, at the end of the day, bad decisions:

We see patterns where there is only random noise
We see causal relationships where there are none
We overvalue confirmatory information for any given hypothesis
We seek out confirmatory information for any given hypothesis
Our assessment of the quality of new evidence is biased by our previous beliefs.

The chapter—which is brief (only 14 pages) needs to be read in full to appreciate how these traps arise and how they can be circumvented. But even without the accompanying text, recognizing the traps is a critical step toward avoiding them.

As he writes, Goldacre has journalists firmly in his sights as some of the worst offenders for falling into these traps. But on reading through the chapter, what struck me most what how easy it is for other users of science-based information to get things wrong. Scientists aren’t immune—especially when they are communicating their work to audiences outside their field. Neither are policy advisers and makers, who have been known occasionally to conveniently overlook inconvenient data!

The bottom line here is that clever people are quite capable of believing stupid things, and that without good science-based checks and balances in place, bad decisions can result that may cause a lot of damage.

The solution: Buy beg or borrow Ben’s book, read it, and use it. And get those checks and balances working – however you are using scientific knowledge!

___________________________________________

Notes

Ben Goldacre blogs at www.badscience.net, The website is also great portal into the world of bad science!

Bad Science (Publisher: Fourth Estate – London) isn’t directly available in the US, but can be ordered from amazon.co.uk—be sure to use the click-through on Ben’s Bad Science website.

If you can’t get hold of the book, you could always lobby Ben and his publisher to make chapter 12 available for free—as a service to humanity ☺

Mea Culpa – why “clever” people write stupid things!

Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed that in the original version of this post, “Ben Goldacre” mysteriously transmuted to “Ben Goldring” after the first paragraph (thanks Devan at Holford Watch for the tip).

I can only lay blame at the feet of too many distractions, poor copy editing and just plain stupidity – and apologise unreservedly to Ben!

And confirm that this is now a Goldring-free posting ☺

(11/15/08)

Five good books

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:47:24 +0000

Obama and science – Essential bed-time reading for the next Administration

Finally, the campaigning is over, everyone knows more about fruit flies than they ever wanted to (thank you Sarah Palin), and on an historic day America has “voted for change.” As the country looks forward to a radical change in leadership, the coming weeks are going to be wall-to-wall analysis of what an Obama administration will mean for everything from the economy to energy. And 2020science.org will be there in the thick of things. But after a heavy night of vote-watching, I thought something a little lighter was in order.

So here as an antidote to election fatigue are five good books every “convalescing campaigner” should have by their bedside as they work on regaining their strength. And as you might expect, I’ve thrown in a subtle but nevertheless significant emphasis on good science policy.

But first some explaining is in order, because I suspect that the list below will raise more than a few eyebrows.

Much as I love science and technology, I’m savvy enough I hope to realize that not everyone has my passion for the subject. In fact, when it comes to making big decisions that affect millions of people, I’m not sure that an obsession with scientific minutiae is necessary or even helpful—too many distractions to obscure the big picture. (And there are always plenty of experts that can be tapped into when necessary with the right networks in place).

But I do think that an understanding of what science is, how it works, and how it can be used, is essential to good policy making.

Bottom line: It probably isn’t a good idea to try and turn the President of the United States into a scientist. But it does make sense to ensure he has a good feel for how science (and technology) can be used to strengthen the country and change people’s lives.

And so my bed-time book list aims to enlighten the reader on how to use science wisely in a complex society, rather than educate them on the nuts and bolts of scientific knowledge.

Without further ado therefore, and in reverse order of preference, we have:

A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson. OK, so Bryson goes into the minutiae occasionally, but this is a book that succeeds where many fail in communicating what science is and why it is important—probably because it was written by someone who isn’t actually a scientist! A close contender for this spot was Natalie Angier’s The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. Another great book, but while Bryson provides a rather homely thanksgiving dinner of a book, Angier’s Canon is more like the after-dinner truffles—exceedingly good, but best in small amounts!

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins. Wherever you are on the God-scale, this book has one overarching message—scientific evidence is not a matter of belief. An important message for anyone making big decisions who doesn’t want to really mess-up.

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen. Because all work and no play makes anyone rather dull—no science here, but a reminder that there’s more to a functional social life than being a geek! And if Jane Austen’s original is too much to stomach, there is always Helen Fielding’s re-write in the form of Bridget Jones’ Diary.

Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre. A searing exposé of the dangers of misrepresenting and misusing science, written by a physician and columnist for The Guardian newspaper. A highly accessible, entertaining and essential read for anyone using scientific knowledge to make informed decisions. Unfortunately the book is not available directly in the States, but beg, borrow or steal a copy—or order it directly from Amazon.co.uk. Or failing that, check out Ben’s blog at www.badscience.net. (look out for more on this book in later blogs).

The Bromeliad Trilogy, by Terry Pratchett. Ignore for a moment the fact that this is a fantasy tale, was written for children, and is in fact three books and not one. Because this rather subtle and deceptively deep fable speaks volumes about the interplay between belief, technology and awkward citizens when tough decisions are needed under changing circumstances. But more than anything else, it eloquently explores the importance of humility and conviction in leadership. Read it, and you will be reminded that understanding the implications of science and technology is just the beginning of good decision-making. And as a bonus, you will have a great set of books to share with the family.

So now I batten down the hatches and wait for the abuse to flow (“wot, no Einstein for Dummies?” I hear you say).

But before you post a suitably acerbic comment on the inanity of my choices, consider this: What does it take to use science (and technology) most effectively in the service of society? I would put high on my list three things: Humility, an open mind, and a willingness to change course in the light of new information—three things that all five books here tackle head-on.

Enjoy ☺

Five slightly harder pieces—underpinning sound science policy

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:45:07 +0000

With just over a week to go before the 2008 US presidential election, there’s no shortage of opinions floating around on the key science and technology-related challenges facing an incoming Obama or McCain administration. But while advice swirls around issues like nanotechnology, synthetic biology, the environment, and establishing a top-level presidential science adviser as fast as possible, there is less talk about overarching goals that will underpin the science and technology policy agenda for the next four years…

Last Friday the journal Science published “10 meaty topics” for the 44th president to chew on, while a few weeks back we had “six easy pieces” from bioethicist Arthur Caplan (billed as a “Cheat Sheet for the Next Administration on Science & Tech Policy”). And both the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Center for the Study of the Presidency have issued practical advice on ensuring a sci-tech savvy Whitehouse come the new year.

But most of the opinions laid out here and elsewhere address either the big science-based issues facing the next president, or the organizational challenges of getting a science-informed administration together that can hit the ground running. What about the overall goals that are going to define the science, engineering and technology agenda for the next four years?

Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s essential that the next administration gets its act together on filling key science and technology positions as fast as possible, and identifies priority areas for research and development investment. But a set of overarching goals is also needed, that will enable good intentions to be translated into effective policies.

So with this in mind, here are five goals the incoming administration could do worse than think about as it begins to reformulate America’s science and technology agenda:

Foster science-based decision-making. Build a network of respected and authoritative science advisers that reaches to the heart of government. And in the process, enable decision-making processes that rely on science-fact rather than science-fantasy.

Develop a social challenges-driven research agenda. Use some of the biggest issues facing society—energy, health, water, food—to drive a multidisciplinary research agenda that serves people’s needs. Make discovery-driven research an integral part of this process; creating a well of new knowledge and ideas that can be used to improve people’s lives. Enable researchers to cross normally rigid disciplinary and institutional boundaries to address common concerns. And re-examine the way that investment in science and technology can best serve societies’ long-term needs.

Build Constituencies. Engage citizens in research that is relevant to them. Inspire and enable everyday people to take an interest in, support, and even participate in, research that could change their lives. Make the scientific enterprise personal—where there are goals that will make a difference to individuals, help them to become part of the process. It works with medical research—it should work in other areas as well.

Nurture critical thinking. Institute formal and informal education programs that empower people to make evidence-based decisions. Not everyone is interested in science. But everyone should be able to distinguishing between good science and bad science—especially when important decisions are to be made. While many people struggle with the complexities of science at some point, most people are capable of understanding the implications of scientific and technological innovations—given half a chance. As Arthur Caplan writes; “the American people are not dense.”

Cultivate civic scientists. Develop a generation of scientists, technologists and engineers that can, in the words of Neal Lane, “step beyond their campuses, laboratories, and institutes and into the center of their communities to engage in active dialogue with their fellow citizens.” Because these are the people who will be most effective in informing science-based decisions, making a social challenges-driven research agenda work, building constituencies around key issues, and empowering citizens to think critically.

Developing such an overarching set of science policy goals will never replace addressing the big issues outlined in the Science article and others. But it just might make the process a little easier.

2020 Science » Science Policy

Is nanotechnology suffering from “silent rave” syndrome?

Nanotechnology policy and regulation timeline

Power to the people – should citizens be more involved in assessing energing technologies?

White House plans a new government policy coordination group on emerging technologies

The UK Nanotechnologies Strategy – disappointing

British Science in the 21st century: The Royal Society on securing Britain’s future prosperity

Recommendation1: Put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth

Recommendation 2: Prioritise investment in excellent people

Recommendation 3: Strengthen Government’s use of science

Recommendation 4: Reinforce the UK’s position as a hub for global science and innovation

Recommendation 5: Better align science and innovation with global challenges

Recommendation 6: Revitalise science and mathematics education

New report on Science and Trust emphasizes acknowledging risk and uncertainty

Science Media Centre briefing on Climate Science in the Media – Don’t Panic!!

From Davos with love

Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

The final part of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs

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

What’s technology innovation got to do with it? Final thoughts on the Summit on the Global Agenda

Speaking power to truth – the unfortunate case of David Nutt

Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

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

Reflections of a “scientific illiterate”

Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

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

Nanotechnology: Ensuring success through safety

Science minister’s question time

Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Part 6 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Cultural smokescreens

Obama’s science and technology call to arms

Geoengineering goes mainstream

Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

Part 2 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

New life, old bottles: The video

Are we ready for synthetic biology?

Science, technology and the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control

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

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Science, society and the Second Enlightenment

Revisiting the Civic Scientist

Welcome to the new-look 2020 Science

A red-letter day for science and technology

Five more good books

A "manifesto" for socially-relevant science and technology

Obama – staking out a science and technology presidency

John Holdren – Obama’s new science advisor?

Why clever people believe stupid things

Five good books

Five slightly harder pieces—underpinning sound science policy

The final part of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

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

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