Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.
Take a metaphorical slice through this year’s annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, and Global Risk would be writ large through every part of it. Hot on the heels of the sixth Global Risk report, this year’s meeting saw the launch of the Risk Response Network – a new initiative to facilitate responsive, informed and integrative action on global risks. And throughout the meeting, sessions and conversations abound that are grappling with understanding and mitigating emerging risks in today’s complex and interconnected world.
But important and impressive as this agenda is, I wonder whether there is something missing.
I’m approaching risk at Davos this year from three perspectives: exploring the relationship between science, innovation and risk; understanding the impact of emerging risks on public health; and developing technology-enabled approaches to risk mitigation. The common themes here are science and technology – both as potential drivers of risk, and as sources of possible solutions.
From my work in science, technology and public health, it is clear that a deep understanding of the roles of science and technology in addressing risk is critical to building resilient and sustainable responses to global risks. It is also increasingly clear that integrating this understanding into the process of addressing global risks is vital.
Yet this is where the World Economic Forum’s timely thrust to address global risks seems to be somewhat lacking.
Science and technology are certainly well-repented on the Davos agenda. But I get the sense that they are part of the alternative program – “the entertainment” as one colleague described them. This is probably a little harsh. But the science and technology sessions do tend to be aimed at wowing delegates, rather than engaging them in exploring integrated solutions to pressing problems – a bit of light relief from the serious business of fixing the world’s problems. Even the IdeasLab sessions, which get the closest to engaging people on emerging issues, struggle to make science and technology part of a larger conversation.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m the first to admit that there’s a lot to get excited about in contemporary science and technology. But if robust solutions are to be found to global risks, science and technology must be integrated into mainstream discussions – not treated as an entertaining but often incomprehensible sideshow.
And that means elevating science to a seat at the table as new solutions to emerging risks are explored.
I realize that this is a daunting task. I’ll be the first to admit that scientists can be an intimidating bunch – an image they don’t necessarily try too hard to dispel. But until scientists, engineers and technologists are seen as partners in the process of risk mitigation, not just consultants or contractors, building resilient solutions to global challenges is going to be one tough call.
It strikes me one of the reasons for science/scientists not being ‘at the table’ as you suggest may be the ‘incomprehensible’ part, we really really must get better at being understood in the language of those who are ‘at the table’, not just our own language. The people at the table perhaps don’t understand the language of science, or our language is too arcane for those in the ‘real world’. Perhaps the science community looks down on what appears to be the rather ‘crass’ focus on solutions, impact or even quick fixes.
However my recent experience is there is a real need for both. Businesses move fast, they are flexible and focused on an outcome, which makes working with them so energising and dynamic. No 18 month wait for funding after the interminable complex hoop jumping tender process, if they like what you are doing, you get the money in the bank by the end of the month and you are on your way. But someone also has to fund for the long haul. Not that many of the larger businesses don’t do that, but there is a role and responsibility for the research community and government to consider those aspects which need independent funding, blue sky thinking, long term research and impartial analysis.
I don’t think I am very clear about the distinctions between the two here, but if we are not at the table when the important decisions are being made, are not consulted or focused on delivery it isn’t just their fault for not understanding us!
Think you are absolutely right Hilary. A huge language and understanding challenge here. Of course, the science engagement community have been grappling with this for years. But the real challenge I suspect is not just helping people connect with science, but to enable them to collaborate with scientists, engineers and technologists more effectively
Thanks Andrew, though we are finding with our current project on ‘Walking with Stakeholders’ that perhaps the science engagement community has been grappling very well with engaging with the public, and even ‘professional stakeholders’, eg ngos and their opinions, but actually not as much with the business community, business agenda and commercial mindset which is different again. Of course there is quite a bit going on with the tech transfer agenda, but less so with engaging on the issues that they find important. Very happy to be disabused of this view if anyone has information.
It sounds to me as if you’ve found your calling, and are optimizing the role you defined for yourself as a challenger: creating opportunities to ask probing questions that help create broader context in which the work of experts has relevance!
I see no Luddite here, and the Davos community should see no troublemaker.
We all benefit if the participants at the World Economic Forum can see what their work means in a broader social, economic and political context.
And certainly, the world will benefit if global leaders perceive the key role of “science and technology – both as potential drivers of risk, and as sources of possible solutions.”
Keep up the good work!
I meant to conclude the above with a “where do we go from here, after Davos?” question. The “we” being mainly metaphorical. I enjoy, in my minor way, participating in the larger conversation engaging people on the role of science and technology in solving global and local issues. But I also enjoy sitting here, safely well behind the scenes, encouraging, (and appreciate the work of) those who are actually out there on the front lines.
Thanks Gaythia,
Davos is a tremendously invigorating and inspiring meeting. But it only works if the sparks ignited here actually lead to something. Hopefully they will (on multiple fronts), but I suspect it will be a long, slow haul.