By Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Associate Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society
A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series
Much appreciation is due to Andrew for his courage in soliciting “alternative perspectives” on technology innovation and life in the 21st century. I can’t help but observe that his nervousness about doing so is one small sign that something is amiss in what he calls “the interface between emerging technologies and society.”
One challenge we face in mending that interface is a tendency toward over-enthusiasm about prospective technologies. Another is the entanglement of technology innovation and commercial dynamics. Neither of these is brand new.
Back in the last century, the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair took “technological innovation” as its theme and “A Century of Progress” as its formal name. Its official motto was “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.”
The slogan shamelessly depicts “science” and “industry” as dictator – or at least drill sergeant – of humanity. It anoints industrial science as a rightful decision-maker about human ends, and an inevitable purveyor of societal uplift.
Today the 1933 World’s Fair slogan seems altogether crass. But have we earned our cringe? We’d like to think that we’re more realistic about science and technology innovations. We want to believe that, in some collective sense, we’re in control of their broad direction. But are we less giddy about the techno-future now than we were back then? Does technology innovation now serve human needs rather than the imperatives of commerce? Have we devised social and cultural innovations for shaping new technologies – do we have robust democratic mechanisms that encourage citizens and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions about their development, use and regulation?
I’m afraid that the habits of exaggerating the benefits of new technologies and minimizing their unwanted down sides are with us still. And in my view there’s huge room for improvement in our capacity for democratic governance of technology innovation.
Part of the problem is a lag in acknowledging how technology innovation now typically unfolds. Popular perceptions of scientific and technological development still feature white-coated researchers toiling late into the night for the benefit of humanity (or demented Dr. Frankensteins heedlessly pursing their own grand ambitions). To whatever extent these images may have once been realistic, they are now downright misleading. Technology innovation is increasingly dominated by large-scale commercial imperatives. Over the past century, and ever more so since the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (an attempt to spur innovation by allowing publicly funded researchers to profit from their work), innovators have become scientist-entrepreneurs, and universities something akin to corporate incubators.
Commercial dynamics have become particularly influential in the biosciences. It’s hard to imagine any scientist today responding as Jonas Salk did in 1955, when he said with a straight face that “the people” own the polio vaccine. “There is no patent,” he told legendary news broadcaster Edward R. Murrow. “Could you patent the sun?”
Of course, entrepreneurial activity in technology and science often delivers important benefits. It can bring new discoveries and techniques to fruition quickly, and make them available rapidly. Some recent commercial technologies, most notably in digital communication and computing, are stunning indeed.
But how far have we come from the slogan of the 1933 World’s Fair? Technology developers still routinely present their plans either as “inevitable” or as crucial for economic growth. As for the rest of us, we have few opportunities to deliberate – especially as citizens, but also as consumers – about the risks as well as the benefits of technology innovations. Twenty-first century societies and communities too often wind up conforming to new technologies rather than finding ways to shape their goals and direction.
In considering the future of human reproductive, genetic and related technologies (this is the major focus of my organization, the Center for Genetics and Society), the prospect of conforming to the imperatives of science and industry carries a chillingly literal implication. Scattered but persistent voices advocate that we “design” or “engineer” the traits of our children and of future generations. Some enthusiasts acknowledge that this would likely exacerbate social inequality; they recognize the very real possibility of a GATTACA-like future peopled with genetic haves and have-nots. But they remain gung-ho. Others fail to challenge such visions on the shaky libertarian grounds that an individual’s choice to alter the human species should trump commitments to social justice and human rights.
Fortunately, these are minority views. Inheritable genetic modification is opposed by large majorities in opinion surveys, and has been formally rejected in the laws of nearly 50 countries. Unfortunately, there is no such policy in the U.S. Nor does the U.S. meaningfully regulate assisted reproductive technologies as other industrial democracies do.
What’s needed now is a new kind of biopolitical thinking. Toward that end, here are five principles that I believe should inform deliberation about innovation in human biotechnologies (and other major technologies as well):
- First, let’s acknowledge that the practices and products of science are inherently political [PDF]. They affect us collectively, shaping our communities and the larger world we share. That inescapable fact makes it legitimate—in fact obligatory—to subject powerful new technologies, including human biotech and related emerging technologies, to social negotiation and, when appropriate, to responsible control.
- Second, we need systematic, inclusive, and robust public conversations about the consequences of technology innovations and the values they support or undermine. This is especially challenging for reproductive and genetic technologies because of Americans’ strongly divergent views about beginning-of-life matters. If we can establish habits of thoughtful deliberation about these technologies, we’d have taken a big step forward.
- Third, the known and potential social consequences of technology innovations – not just their safety and efficacy – should be systematically included in our evaluations. We should particularly assess their impacts on socially and economically vulnerable populations.
- Fourth, we should draw on the lessons of previous efforts by socially concerned scientists and their supporters—the “atomic scientists,” environmentalists, public health advocates, and others—to safeguard human health and the environment, bolster responsible science, and build a more just society. We should be skeptical of technological fixes for social problems, and of innovations that serve elite groups rather than the public interest and the common good.
- Fifth, we should acknowledge that market mechanisms are not a substitute for public policy, and affirm the legitimacy and urgency of democratic oversight of major technology innovations, including human biotechnologies. As we would in other arenas, we should avoid regulatory capture, eliminate conflicts of interest, and maximize transparency, accountability, and wide participation in policy making.
The good news is that a new approach to biopolitics is taking shape, one that supports technology innovation when it serves human needs and socially defined goals, and when its broad directions are shaped by democratic governance. A growing network of civil society leaders, public intellectuals, and scientists is taking on the challenge. Contact CGS for more information.
__________________________
Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, is Associate Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society, a Berkeley, California-based public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of reproductive and genetic biotechnologies.
More information:
Center for Genetics and Society www.geneticsandsociety.org
Biopolitical Times www.biopoliticaltimes.org
More about the guidelines for 21st-century biopolitics:
“Political Science: Progressives can’t—and shouldn’t—remove politics and values from science,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Summer 2009 http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6700
Excellent start to the guest blog series!
Agree wholeheartedly with pretty much all of what is said here. We are looking at this area in the UK/EU too, bringing together different stakeholder perspectives in a new ‘action tank’ type organisation to consider these very issues. Our initial discussions with stakeholders agree with the need for such Principles as you outline Marcy. The debates end up with the obvious questions though – how do these Principles get developed globally which is what is really required? Who will take notice? And, of course, who will pay for the development and outreach process! Hmm!
So look out for a new UK/EU organisation in the New Year, called: Matter – making new technologies work for us all. A scoop for Andrew who has been very helpful in giving us his input. Anyone wants a chat about the concept and the development of an international network of us folks who agree with the need for such Principles, do send me an email to [email protected]. Send one too if you think it’s a load of old cobblers!
Sorry for the self-promo Andrew, but looking forward to the other blogs!
Thanks Hilary, and no problems Re: the “self-promo” 🙂
At the turn of the 21st C a senior executive from a major software manufacturer said to me, ‘Ruth, most people already have more software than they need or will ever learn how to use. This came on the heels of a radio show about the stress constantly learning new software systems was posing for research librarians.
So it’s not just socially communicative scientists who need to be doing the outreach – the rift between ‘real’ and social scientists needs to be breached for once and for all, and social scientists need to be involved in the earliest stages of the consultation process – which seems implicit in point three, but isn’t explicit.
Agree fully with you Ruth – although the challenges of getting ‘hard” and “soft” scientists communicating together, and then saying stuff that is intelligible and relevant to everyone else, are somewhat large.
I’m still agog at that motto from the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair: “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.” – was this accepted by people back in 1933, or was it a classic case of the “hard” scientists forgetting to talk to the “soft” scientists? Would be interesting to know more…
Indeed Ruth, but not just social scientists, that’s part of the problem. Social scientists are in their own little theoretical land half the time too, unconnected and speaking a language that most of us don’t understand. It’s got to be all of us – business people, politicians, the public, ngos, the media and scientists of all shapes and forms need to engage properly instead of sniping at each other from the sidelines.
Trouble is, who will pay for the engagement? It needs to be part of everyone’s day job, but that’s an uphill battle in itself.