The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) requires all of its regulated utilities to perform an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) every two years. This requirement could be considered a form of Anticipatory Governance (AG) not only in the form of the IRP as a tool, but also as a process. Take APS, for instance. Their last IRP report was published in January of 2009 and their next one is due by July 1st of 2011. The regulatory landscape has changed since then, in addition to reality changing, so it should be interesting to compare their visions of the future and how that vision has changed in two years.
The ACC’s docketed opinion and order:
“The purpose of IRP is to minimize the total societal cost of meeting the demand for electric energy services giving due consideration to ratepayer impacts, utility financial health and economic growth within a utility’s service area. The goal of resource planning can be achieved by finding the mix of supply and demand side resources that minimize society’s costs.”
As for Anticipatory Governance, the IRP process correlates fairly well. The Corporation’s own description of the raison d’etre has social considerations and social science built into it. The fact that the Utility is probably only complying with the process because it is required to does not negate the benefits of the process. This is a form of forecasting, or foresight. It is actually something that energy companies have been doing for decades already (Shell) because it allows them to see what kinds of challenges they will have moving forward. Many energy companies are fairly conservative and look to long term stability for a return on their investments, so the IRP process is not an unfamiliar a task.
APS uses long-term forecasting based on the economy, growth trends, and customer usage to start. Risk analysis and judgement, along with the inevitability of change also affect their decision about planning for future energy needs. They use Stakeholder input, ACC guidance, and Regulatory Requirements to guide their “vision for Arizona”. So now, from the utility’s point of view, we have more correlation between AG concepts and real applications.
While I’m focusing on Foresight, there are other elements of AG to be considered: Engagement and Integration are two. With engagement, we get the potential for co-production and more reflexivity. Integration is a topic more suited for upstream engagement, so we’ll focus on Engagement. This is the place where the air becomes as unclear as a cool, still winter morning in the Valley of the Sun when the mountains are not visible, due to the brown cloud of pollution. What counts as good public engagement? Public polls? Letters to the utility, or the ACC which regulates them? Or perhaps open meetings or town hall meetings? Even this latter option might be skewed if supporters or others are bused in by the hundreds. But at least they’re trying. The open meetings of the ACC last for two full days and part of that time is for public comment. The process allows for live comment by anyone who signs up to be on the roster.
Back to Foresight. The IRPs are used to make decisions by many stakeholders. This is done not just by looking at the numbers, but also by deciding how much they do or do not trust a certain institution. The very presence of the IRPs is relevant to the discourse. It says to the public that the ACC is interested enough in protecting their constituents, that the IRPs are required. That says a lot.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Embracing the Creative, Collaborative side in all of us!
The notion of anticipatory governance is intriguing to me. As discussed in previous classes, the notion of prediction and reliable modeling for decision making is paramount in today’s society. What the authors suggest is a shift away from this static conceptualization of imagining futures to a more open process which focuses on potentialities not ever closer approximations to what the “true” future will hold.
Karinen and Guston trace a brief history of social nanotech research and the term ‘anticipatory governance’. What they find is somewhat haphazard beginnings in the search for research themes.
They lay out two different scenario building exercises toward the end of their piece. One involving a broader examination of science fiction literature in addition to popular and published scientific ideas; the other involves a ‘traditional’ approach whereby stakeholders imagine futures together. The former seems to be a far more interesting endeavor-but would benefit I think from the public input as well. I find that the cultural surroundings in which one is couched can carry significant meaning (oftentimes extending beyond what our conscious mind can envelop).
However, as noted in the Miller and Bennett piece it is not simply a one way transaction of information flowing to the public from science fiction literature and film (through fan-fiction and general discussion). Nor are these media simply ways to further the predictive approach preferred by some policy-makers and analysts. They argue, rather, “In our view, the best science fiction accords careful attention to what it means to be human and to live in human societies” (600). Additionally, importance is placed on non-linearity. I found the projects outlined to be very interesting. Most hard scientist friends I have are also very creative. We tend to stereotype scientists as being very meticulous (which, oftentimes they are - especially with language). Providing a space for envisioning the future of their studied technology in a narrative fashion sounds like something every scientist in training should experience.
Something mentioned in passing at the end of the Miller/Bennett article was the notion of citizen “buy-in”. This is a pivotal point with regards to ownership and identity. I would like to hear more about the assessment of folks who do engage in these processes and how these engagements impact subsequent decisions.
Something that springs immediately to mind when discussing the media’s role in the public scientific imagination is Science Friday on NPR or the numerous informational cable (and PBS) channels. What role do they have in educating the public about envisioning futures or helping craft new ways of thinking about technological advancement?
A concern of course is the matter of who can and cannot, will, and will not be involved with citizen engagement processes. It is, I’m sure, the goal of any anticipatory governance researcher to read the broadest audience possible. As I mentioned in class last week, certain people will be automatically filtered through the line by their personal interests and stakes. But maybe this is not completely a negative impact. People from all walks of life share similar interest with regards to science fiction and science proper. I will freely admit that I knew more about hard science as high schooler than I do today. If our public educational system is still (fingers crossed) teaching basic science then a range of people should be able to engage meaningfully in projects like the ones outlined in these papers.
Karinen and Guston trace a brief history of social nanotech research and the term ‘anticipatory governance’. What they find is somewhat haphazard beginnings in the search for research themes.
They lay out two different scenario building exercises toward the end of their piece. One involving a broader examination of science fiction literature in addition to popular and published scientific ideas; the other involves a ‘traditional’ approach whereby stakeholders imagine futures together. The former seems to be a far more interesting endeavor-but would benefit I think from the public input as well. I find that the cultural surroundings in which one is couched can carry significant meaning (oftentimes extending beyond what our conscious mind can envelop).
However, as noted in the Miller and Bennett piece it is not simply a one way transaction of information flowing to the public from science fiction literature and film (through fan-fiction and general discussion). Nor are these media simply ways to further the predictive approach preferred by some policy-makers and analysts. They argue, rather, “In our view, the best science fiction accords careful attention to what it means to be human and to live in human societies” (600). Additionally, importance is placed on non-linearity. I found the projects outlined to be very interesting. Most hard scientist friends I have are also very creative. We tend to stereotype scientists as being very meticulous (which, oftentimes they are - especially with language). Providing a space for envisioning the future of their studied technology in a narrative fashion sounds like something every scientist in training should experience.
Something mentioned in passing at the end of the Miller/Bennett article was the notion of citizen “buy-in”. This is a pivotal point with regards to ownership and identity. I would like to hear more about the assessment of folks who do engage in these processes and how these engagements impact subsequent decisions.
Something that springs immediately to mind when discussing the media’s role in the public scientific imagination is Science Friday on NPR or the numerous informational cable (and PBS) channels. What role do they have in educating the public about envisioning futures or helping craft new ways of thinking about technological advancement?
A concern of course is the matter of who can and cannot, will, and will not be involved with citizen engagement processes. It is, I’m sure, the goal of any anticipatory governance researcher to read the broadest audience possible. As I mentioned in class last week, certain people will be automatically filtered through the line by their personal interests and stakes. But maybe this is not completely a negative impact. People from all walks of life share similar interest with regards to science fiction and science proper. I will freely admit that I knew more about hard science as high schooler than I do today. If our public educational system is still (fingers crossed) teaching basic science then a range of people should be able to engage meaningfully in projects like the ones outlined in these papers.
Anticipating Solutions
Anticipatory governance, with its concentration on foresight, engagement, and integration (roughly forecasting technological change, engaging with the public concerning that forecasted change and the desires of the public concerning that change, and integrating the public’s input into the trajectory of that technology) serves a vital function for attempting to avoid what Alvin Toffler refers to as “future shock”, or the state of psychological distress caused by “too much change in too short a time period”. There is no doubt that technological change has been accelerating rapidly, especially since Toffler’s book, and that a process is needed to ensure that society has some sort of say in what the future’s shape turns out to be.
Although I admire the work done to construct this process, I have two nagging thoughts that unfortunately seem to have not been addressed in the anticipatory governance literature: the potential for politicization of this process, and the potential for the public to truly engage with it.
First, the potential for politicization of this framework, if it is applied on a large scale and is integrated with the technology policymaking process, is enormous. One does not need to have much foresight to see how this framework will be addressed by the popular news media, political parties, or economic interests. The potential for the corruption of this framework, like the potential for regulatory capture, the distortion of markets, the influencing of elections (or any economic or political arena, really) leads one to question if this framework can be spared the same fate when it is brought out of the university and implemented on a larger scale. Being a political scientist, I can guarantee that relevant interests, when they see the opportunity to distort how the public feels and communicates concerns about a particular technology, will attempt to influence the proceedings. Constructing an apparatus that tries to insulate the operations of this framework from these interests should be an important part of the intellectual planning before wide-scale implementation is sought.
The above may be a bit pessimistic, however. Other regulatory bodies that attempt to steer technologies in safer directions, like the FDA, have had success in protecting the public from potentially damaging products. However, these institutions have learned that appropriate measures must be taken to insulate their proceedings from manipulative interests as much as possible. An institution based on anticipatory governance principles should look to these types of organizations for ways to protect its integrity while engaging the public as much as possible.
Second, although I’m certain the public is curious about new technologies and is capable of understanding their societal implications, I’m less certain that they’ll be able to or want to engage in such a framework as much as would be needed to truly make it a success. Miller and Bennet’s article presented a solid option that could keep the public engaged with possible technological scenarios, but, as the novelty wore off, would the public continue to engage in this way? The only way to really know would be to implement it, but more work should be done in this area to ensure that the most important pillar, public engagement, is successful. Even with these two objections, I still view this framework as the best that has been presented to deal with these issues, and I hope to see it continue to be pushed forward.
Although I admire the work done to construct this process, I have two nagging thoughts that unfortunately seem to have not been addressed in the anticipatory governance literature: the potential for politicization of this process, and the potential for the public to truly engage with it.
First, the potential for politicization of this framework, if it is applied on a large scale and is integrated with the technology policymaking process, is enormous. One does not need to have much foresight to see how this framework will be addressed by the popular news media, political parties, or economic interests. The potential for the corruption of this framework, like the potential for regulatory capture, the distortion of markets, the influencing of elections (or any economic or political arena, really) leads one to question if this framework can be spared the same fate when it is brought out of the university and implemented on a larger scale. Being a political scientist, I can guarantee that relevant interests, when they see the opportunity to distort how the public feels and communicates concerns about a particular technology, will attempt to influence the proceedings. Constructing an apparatus that tries to insulate the operations of this framework from these interests should be an important part of the intellectual planning before wide-scale implementation is sought.
The above may be a bit pessimistic, however. Other regulatory bodies that attempt to steer technologies in safer directions, like the FDA, have had success in protecting the public from potentially damaging products. However, these institutions have learned that appropriate measures must be taken to insulate their proceedings from manipulative interests as much as possible. An institution based on anticipatory governance principles should look to these types of organizations for ways to protect its integrity while engaging the public as much as possible.
Second, although I’m certain the public is curious about new technologies and is capable of understanding their societal implications, I’m less certain that they’ll be able to or want to engage in such a framework as much as would be needed to truly make it a success. Miller and Bennet’s article presented a solid option that could keep the public engaged with possible technological scenarios, but, as the novelty wore off, would the public continue to engage in this way? The only way to really know would be to implement it, but more work should be done in this area to ensure that the most important pillar, public engagement, is successful. Even with these two objections, I still view this framework as the best that has been presented to deal with these issues, and I hope to see it continue to be pushed forward.
Anticipation, Ambition, and Anxiety
Miller and Bennett (2008, 597) argue that “efforts to grapple with long-term societal implications of technological change must pursue a more balanced approach that stresses the social at least as much as the technical”. In other words, what they are saying is that we need a blend of technology and society in order to get a flavor of so-called socio-technology in anticipating the future of technology. Why do they want us to balance between society and technology? How do we achieve that goal?
Let me answer the first question of why it is necessary for a balanced focus in anticipating technological future. There are two groups of scientists—one needs to abide strictly to the ‘science fact’ while the other needs a balance between ‘science fact’ and ‘science fiction’. For Peterson (2006), she insists that it is necessary to strictly abide to the ‘science fact’ or physical law; whereas Miller and Bennett (2008) more favor a balanced act. They argue that mutual agreement of technology change is necessary for both public and scientists. To achieve mutual agreement, science-fiction approach would be one of the alternative approaches which has a quality of “narrative story-telling” style of communication. And this encourages public engagement and participation. However, I would argue that the narrative story-telling style of communication could be more useful in anticipation technological future if it is combined with effectively managing three elements—anticipation, ambition, and anxiety.
First, I would like to begin with ambition. Here ambition has two kinds—one from scientists and the other from public. Common goals are necessary in the anticipation process. When sharing common goals, they could engage in more discussion. Thus, I would like to encourage the two to clarify what ambitions they may have.
Second, anticipation of future technology needs a model with a set of assumptions. How precisely a model projects depends on how effectively assumptions are formulated and how they could closely reflect the reality of complex and dynamic human world. Liner assumptions and simplification of complexity contribute most of the residuals in the model results. Therefore, acknowledging uncertainty of the future, assumptions made must be agreed by both groups.
Third, Miller and Bennett (2008) referred to the public as “public in question”, but they lack a mention of what question the public may have. It is important, at the outset, to clearly specify the questions of public as well as the questions of the scientists. When they are known, then the story-telling would be a good approach to answer to those questions. This will kill any anxiety that may arise from both parties.
In conclusion, I would argue that technological future could be brighter, if we manage anticipation, ambition, and anxiety in an effective manner. However, saying is much easier than doing, and there are challenges that I anticipate in the anticipation of future technology.
Reference
Miller, C A, and Bennett, I. 2008. Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?. Science and Public Policy, 35, 8; 597-606
Peterson, Christine. 2006. Thinking longer term about technology. Lecture delivered at Arizona State University, 15 September 2006.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Transparency, Trust and Transformation
Rayner (2009) argues that trust can lead to successful transformation of energy systems. He identifies trust as a key concept in his research in order to understand public acceptance of technologies choices. His main argument is that “high-trust societies are more sustainability than low-trust societies” (Rayner 2009, 1).
“Transparency can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably” (TI, 2011). For Transparency International, citizens are entitled to know not only basic data and facts but also the administrative and decision process. What is the linkage between the trust and transparency? I think, to increase transparency in a country, institutions must disclose basic information and the decision process. To do so, the institutions need to engage with public and inform them of their mechanisms and processes. It is likely that high-trust societies are likely to be more transparent. For examples, countries with corruption perception index (CPI) scores (10 means the least corrupt country) for 2010 are US (7.1), UK (7.6), Germany (7.9), Sweden (9.2), Denmark (9.3), New Zealand (9.3), and Singapore (9.3), Myanmar (1.4), and Somalia (1.1). Those with high CPI are likely to be more high-trust societies whereas the countries with low CPI are likely to be low-trust societies. Rayner (2009, 6) claims that “the presence of multiple overlapping social networks create the conditions for generalized social trust leading to good governance”. Of course, the countries with high-transparency are also having ‘good governance’.
Thus, transparency promotes trust and trust is likely to lead to successful transformation. Transformation means changing conditions or structures, according to Webster Dictionary. In order to change conditions, and structures, first and foremost, public must be informed of necessity for transformation. Then, the process or mechanism of the transformation must be transparent and public consent is necessary for necessity for change. When the process and mechanism is transparent, it is likely that public place more trust that lead to good governance. Therefore, transparency, trust, and transformation are the three key elements that constitute sustainably secured success.
References
Rayner, S. 2009. Trust and the transformation of energy systems. Energy Policy. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.035
TI. 2011. Transparency International. www.transparency.org.
Anticipatory Governance
Anticipatory governance is predicated on the notion that co-production of technology for the benefit of society is possible and relevant during the formation of new scientific discovery and technical invention. Anticipatory government strives to identify relevant social issues and develop mechanisms for handling the conflicts that will occur as new systems of products are pushed or pulled into the marketplace. But can this be controlled from a societal viewpoint? The implementation of infrastructures has seldom been about the long term impacts of technology. Electricity and internal combustion engines are subject to physical laws that define how they must be implemented. Transmission lines and oil wells may be scars upon the land, but the benefit of the underlying technology to society and the power of large industry to implement their business models were too great to stop the industries from having their way with the environment.
Real Time Technology Assessment and other tools will help identify potential future risks and guide policy makers in putting the concerns of society alongside benefits and profits of the implementing organizations. The unpredictability of future outcomes will ensure that worse case scenarios are discounted and downplayed and future benefits will employ the novelty principle in ways that new technologies will be demanded even as they present us with new risks. But as these ensembles of new technology identified in the Barben reading manifest themselves, they allow action to be taken and these products to enter the market.
In order for anticipatory governance to have a chance of successfully integrating these new sciences into society, it must have to power to act. The governance model suggests that distributed models of management will be the paradigm. But will these new boundary organizations, self-regulations and distributed learning organizations be enough? In the Bell reading he suggests options for experts, watchdogs, or the public to be decision agents and encourages public participation in the debates. The public need for informed decision making will face many challenges including the need for open engagement with regulatory agencies. In order to keep the debate from dissolving into dogmatic stand offs over social impacts, further public engagement tools will require continual government interventions to give legitimacy and discipline to decisions.
Real Time Technology Assessment and other tools will help identify potential future risks and guide policy makers in putting the concerns of society alongside benefits and profits of the implementing organizations. The unpredictability of future outcomes will ensure that worse case scenarios are discounted and downplayed and future benefits will employ the novelty principle in ways that new technologies will be demanded even as they present us with new risks. But as these ensembles of new technology identified in the Barben reading manifest themselves, they allow action to be taken and these products to enter the market.
In order for anticipatory governance to have a chance of successfully integrating these new sciences into society, it must have to power to act. The governance model suggests that distributed models of management will be the paradigm. But will these new boundary organizations, self-regulations and distributed learning organizations be enough? In the Bell reading he suggests options for experts, watchdogs, or the public to be decision agents and encourages public participation in the debates. The public need for informed decision making will face many challenges including the need for open engagement with regulatory agencies. In order to keep the debate from dissolving into dogmatic stand offs over social impacts, further public engagement tools will require continual government interventions to give legitimacy and discipline to decisions.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Predicting the Quake....could the public have helped?
Science Magazine posted an article in the April 1st 2011 issue called “Scientific Consensus on Great Quake Came Too Late.” The authors main thread of focus was on the evolution of discovery that a great quake was indeed overdue for Japan in 2001, the debates over how these findings should influence policies surrounding disaster mitigations and scientific consensus on the findings that supported the likelihood of such a catastrophic event. The author highlighted the fact that even though there was consensus around the science, there was very little response or influence of these findings on assessments of risk, preparedness or technology safety reviews. There was further argument for increasing the science findings to society in order to bolster responses and risk assessments. But by incorporating society into risk assessments, is the process simply going to end with, as Barbara Young says in her book See Through Science, “the danger is that risk assessment- however participatory- merely digs us deeper into the hole of that we are trying to escape from.” In this book she cautions of “risk society” in which a society focuses solely upon risk assessment and fails to consider other very important questions that should be asked but aren’t due to “ignorance and ambiguity.” This focus upon “is it safe?” questions can be applied to the quake discoveries or any other scientific finding or technology. Would the citizens of Japan have known to ask the right questions about this new information and form an appropriate risk assessment and preparedness plan through educated processes focusing on more than just simple risk? By shifting the focus away from safety and onto more significant questions posed by Young such as: “ What will it mean for me and my family? Why this technology? Why not another? Who needs it? Who is controlling it?” and so on the citizens or person asking the questions are posed for much more complete pictures of the actual issue and how to manage the technology or information. If these questions had been posed to the Japanese society regarding the potential for a devastating quake that would bring ruin to Japan, would the outcome have been any different? By different I mean, would Japan have utilized upstream public engagement and changed route on some technologies such as their nuclear facilities and used risk assessments and preparedness conversations to alter hardiness of the plant. Perhaps, but one obstacle to facilitating such holistic conversations with society is the fact that generally experts are the ones with the information who know the right questions to ask. This is typically why the conversations tend to stay around the issue of safety and fail to address further issues. So how can public engagement address the salient issues while avoiding ambiguity and ignorance that threatens effectiveness of involving society?
Author Rayner in a 2009 article in Energy Policy further illustrates the issues of the deficit of public understanding and ignorance to the real questions of technology assessment outside of risk. Rayner examines the role of public understanding and trust by generating different versions for societal misunderstandings. The first is an issue of knowledge of facts that cannot be understood by the public because they do not have the knowledge to truly be capable of assessing benefits and risks. The second is focused upon the possibility that the public may not understand the processes of science inquiry and the limits involved in science. The third is an issue of trust in science claims. Rayner contends that the issue of risk is really only effectively examined and defined through incorporation of trust, liability and consent. With so many factors in making appropriate assessments of technologies/science and their potential outcomes, public engagement experts and scientists hoping to further public engagement certainly have their work cut out for them as these challenges pose significant obstacles that are conquerable but will most certainly take time.
Meaningful Public Engagement in the Information Overload Age.
Wilsdon and Willis walk us through some of the past attempts to democratize science highlighting the UK’s failure of the Public Understanding of Science paradigm. They suggest that public engagement must have a useful impact. In other words, the people who participate in such deliberative polling, focus groups, juries, conferences, and dialogues should have a sense of how their input will influence the organization’s decisions before choosing to engage. I appreciated the distinction between interests and world views. World views suggests a fundamental difference in the lenses through which entities see the world, while interests denotes a self-conscious tunneling of actions based on desired outcomes.
Restoring public confidence in science at a time when the UK floundered on key issues was the motivation behind this paper. A number of important themes are mentioned early on in this pamphlet. One being that, “Processes of engagement tend to be restricted to particular questions, posed at particular stages in the cycle of research, development, and exploitation” (18). HSD student Sharlissa Moore’s research on the siting of a massive solar power plant is case in point of this problem. The activists knew that the only way to convince decision-makers to site the plant elsewhere was through the powerful Endangered Species Act. This restricted the conversation to how many desert tortoises were located on the site and if their relocation could be mitigated. Not only did this reduce the debate to a particular law, but it also constrained it to the logic of numbers and science.
Another really interesting and important concept in this paper was the deliberative model of democratic opinion forming. The authors observe that when most politicians and economics (I would add some academics to this list) wish to engage with the public they simply conduct a public opinion poll. Instead, they argue that the deliberative model whereby citizens work out their opinions through dialogue, is a more useful tool for engaging with the public. This is because, according to the authors, people do not know how they feel about something unless they are forced to form an opinion about it (46). I am a bit confused because they also say that this could include reading something in the newspaper which leads me to believe that an opinion poll would force someone to think about their views on such and such issue. I agree, however, that engaging in a reasoned debate will allow one to more closely examine their own thoughts on a matter than simply to answer a question or to think briefly about a news story. The key to this, though, is that if the fundamental structure of decision-making processes is not changed, then little will have been added by the addition of public input.
One more thing which I mentioned in class: these types of engagements would seem to be to be already filtered by people’s interests. There is no way to get an accurate picture of “the public’s” view on any particular topic. While I am a fan of the upstream model, I am still trying to work out how it would be integrated into a part of our lives in a meaningful, ongoing manner. There would need to be a major shift in the way politicians, business leaders, scientists, and academics view the public. I have long lamented that I feel it is in error which scholars too assume the public is ignorant or has less knowledge than we do about the workings of the world. Humans are self-aware beings no matter if they choose to spend their time watching TV all day or what have you. I fall into this trap as well at times when I think about the desire of the average American to maintain the status quo (convenience, individualism, opulence, etc. etc), and what it would actually take to shift society’s perspective to a climate more conducive to what the authors (of all the papers) lay out. I want to spout some Marxist rhetoric here, but I will just leave it at the point that we are not any happier in our fully modern world than before despite some securities we have fought hard for and murdered many in the wake. (land, food, “safety”, religious freedom, etc). Are people disconnected because they don't have enough opportunity to be involved? Or because it is not offered as a meaningful option?
In this information overload age, maybe what is missing is a sense that our voice actually matters.
Restoring public confidence in science at a time when the UK floundered on key issues was the motivation behind this paper. A number of important themes are mentioned early on in this pamphlet. One being that, “Processes of engagement tend to be restricted to particular questions, posed at particular stages in the cycle of research, development, and exploitation” (18). HSD student Sharlissa Moore’s research on the siting of a massive solar power plant is case in point of this problem. The activists knew that the only way to convince decision-makers to site the plant elsewhere was through the powerful Endangered Species Act. This restricted the conversation to how many desert tortoises were located on the site and if their relocation could be mitigated. Not only did this reduce the debate to a particular law, but it also constrained it to the logic of numbers and science.
Another really interesting and important concept in this paper was the deliberative model of democratic opinion forming. The authors observe that when most politicians and economics (I would add some academics to this list) wish to engage with the public they simply conduct a public opinion poll. Instead, they argue that the deliberative model whereby citizens work out their opinions through dialogue, is a more useful tool for engaging with the public. This is because, according to the authors, people do not know how they feel about something unless they are forced to form an opinion about it (46). I am a bit confused because they also say that this could include reading something in the newspaper which leads me to believe that an opinion poll would force someone to think about their views on such and such issue. I agree, however, that engaging in a reasoned debate will allow one to more closely examine their own thoughts on a matter than simply to answer a question or to think briefly about a news story. The key to this, though, is that if the fundamental structure of decision-making processes is not changed, then little will have been added by the addition of public input.
One more thing which I mentioned in class: these types of engagements would seem to be to be already filtered by people’s interests. There is no way to get an accurate picture of “the public’s” view on any particular topic. While I am a fan of the upstream model, I am still trying to work out how it would be integrated into a part of our lives in a meaningful, ongoing manner. There would need to be a major shift in the way politicians, business leaders, scientists, and academics view the public. I have long lamented that I feel it is in error which scholars too assume the public is ignorant or has less knowledge than we do about the workings of the world. Humans are self-aware beings no matter if they choose to spend their time watching TV all day or what have you. I fall into this trap as well at times when I think about the desire of the average American to maintain the status quo (convenience, individualism, opulence, etc. etc), and what it would actually take to shift society’s perspective to a climate more conducive to what the authors (of all the papers) lay out. I want to spout some Marxist rhetoric here, but I will just leave it at the point that we are not any happier in our fully modern world than before despite some securities we have fought hard for and murdered many in the wake. (land, food, “safety”, religious freedom, etc). Are people disconnected because they don't have enough opportunity to be involved? Or because it is not offered as a meaningful option?
In this information overload age, maybe what is missing is a sense that our voice actually matters.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Gestalt of scientific institutions
This is one of my favorite topics. Though it wasn’t explicitly labeled as such, it deals with several topics including Governance, public outreach and “Gestalt”. According to Oxford American Dictionary, Gestalt is “An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts”. In Gestalt theory, the whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, but it also influences those parts. Far from random, the “emergence” of these forms of governance and public outreach are an expression of each culture’s Democratic “Gestalt”, or way of seeing the world.
We have several examples of this. The British organization, Demos is itself an expression of the history of culture of the English in their efforts to deal with science and technology in society.
Then, there is Rayner’s descriptions of Trust. He starts out describing the public’s deficit in understanding the facts (“Version I”), processes and limits (“Version II”). Then, he proposes a “Version III”, or public’s deficit of Trust. By using the first two versions, scientists can use the psychological crutch of projection or shield of externality. The third offers scientists an opportunity for internal re-evaluation. The teat upon which the scientific community suckles is connected to a sacred cow of institutional authority. Their role in society has been protected via politicians by the fact that politicians use science as the measure for viability and legitimacy in policy making. Treating scientists like the new priests or Kohens of modern society, if it doesn’t pass scientific muster, then forget about it.
But, who decides who gets to be anointed as representatives of the one true god, aka: “Scientific Truth” (note deliberate usage of capital and lower case letters here)? To what degree are we orthodox, heretical or even secular about science? This is where public trust comes in. Some versions of cultural Gestalt would trust a popular scientist or group of scientists, thereby conferring an authority over the nature of reality to them, and sticking by that version no matter what. They might be called orthodox. Others have different ideas, which may be seen as heretical by the other scientists or the en vogue scientific community. The last group, “secularists”, would make their judgements using scales of measurement other than science.
Demos, as an organization is a product of European sensibilities. This is a secular European vision, rather than an orthodox one. Sure there are pockets and instances of orthodoxy in both Europe and the US, but from a Gestalt perspective, I believe it fair to say that they are more secular than their American counterparts. Thus, a call for more upstream public involvement in science makes sense coming from Demos.
Religion is not democratic, per se. But there are parallels to be drawn between the functioning of democracies and the functioning of religions. We could explore many parallels and narratives on this theme. One example is religious hierarchy vs. the scientific community, in which there are also hierarchies, actors and institutions. Some religions have traditions and Gestalts where questioning is part of the culture. Challenges are welcome and it’s all part of the dialog. Others religions are less open to challenges and seek to exercise a greater amount of authority over the “party line” or Dogma. Governments and societies sometimes act this way as well in relation to scientific thought. When institutional power is challenged, how does the community react? This dynamic is explored nicely in Wynne and Felt’s chapter 2 “Reinventing Innovation”. (Wynne, Felt, 2007)
So, to sum it up, the reflections of societal institutions are visible in the scientific institutions as an image in a mirror draped with gauze. Shadows and shapes of similarities, but not exact representations. Changes in scientific institutions may come slowly or quick, but they will come in time.
We have several examples of this. The British organization, Demos is itself an expression of the history of culture of the English in their efforts to deal with science and technology in society.
Then, there is Rayner’s descriptions of Trust. He starts out describing the public’s deficit in understanding the facts (“Version I”), processes and limits (“Version II”). Then, he proposes a “Version III”, or public’s deficit of Trust. By using the first two versions, scientists can use the psychological crutch of projection or shield of externality. The third offers scientists an opportunity for internal re-evaluation. The teat upon which the scientific community suckles is connected to a sacred cow of institutional authority. Their role in society has been protected via politicians by the fact that politicians use science as the measure for viability and legitimacy in policy making. Treating scientists like the new priests or Kohens of modern society, if it doesn’t pass scientific muster, then forget about it.
But, who decides who gets to be anointed as representatives of the one true god, aka: “Scientific Truth” (note deliberate usage of capital and lower case letters here)? To what degree are we orthodox, heretical or even secular about science? This is where public trust comes in. Some versions of cultural Gestalt would trust a popular scientist or group of scientists, thereby conferring an authority over the nature of reality to them, and sticking by that version no matter what. They might be called orthodox. Others have different ideas, which may be seen as heretical by the other scientists or the en vogue scientific community. The last group, “secularists”, would make their judgements using scales of measurement other than science.
Demos, as an organization is a product of European sensibilities. This is a secular European vision, rather than an orthodox one. Sure there are pockets and instances of orthodoxy in both Europe and the US, but from a Gestalt perspective, I believe it fair to say that they are more secular than their American counterparts. Thus, a call for more upstream public involvement in science makes sense coming from Demos.
Religion is not democratic, per se. But there are parallels to be drawn between the functioning of democracies and the functioning of religions. We could explore many parallels and narratives on this theme. One example is religious hierarchy vs. the scientific community, in which there are also hierarchies, actors and institutions. Some religions have traditions and Gestalts where questioning is part of the culture. Challenges are welcome and it’s all part of the dialog. Others religions are less open to challenges and seek to exercise a greater amount of authority over the “party line” or Dogma. Governments and societies sometimes act this way as well in relation to scientific thought. When institutional power is challenged, how does the community react? This dynamic is explored nicely in Wynne and Felt’s chapter 2 “Reinventing Innovation”. (Wynne, Felt, 2007)
So, to sum it up, the reflections of societal institutions are visible in the scientific institutions as an image in a mirror draped with gauze. Shadows and shapes of similarities, but not exact representations. Changes in scientific institutions may come slowly or quick, but they will come in time.
Democratizing Science
Democratizing Science
Democratizing science can involve increased upstream participation of the general public and benefit policy makers by avoiding market rejection of technology and other misappropriations of resources. The nature of politics in the US however is a fickle beast and upstream visibility ensures that no matter how beneficial your proposed solution, it will draw enemies and resistance in public policy, if for no other reason, than it may take resources away from some other priority. The shift in policy modulation to starting with a governance mindset can also draw in the networks of actors required to make a system more attractive to policy makers. In our class discussion on this topic we examined the European model, where networks of resources from differing countries and diverse backgrounds were awarded projects and grants to aide in the distribution of scientific capability and ensure equitable distribution of R&D euros. The US could take lessons from this policy for basic research and increase project funding from the principal investigator model to the project team model more frequently. This may already be happening in basic science circles, and certainly happens frequently in large technology development programs.
Centers and consortium in the university and foundation space seem to be learning to bid projects more collaboratively, but are still tied to the principal investigator or co-investigator awarded the grant. This provides a good control point to ensure efficient distribution of funds and monitor the projects for midstream, adjustments. In large industry, federal agencies have learned to distribute effort throughout several states in order to keep a critical mass of members of congress on board. This is sometimes referred to as “keeping the program sold”. If there is not a core group of interested parties in place to defend a program, it may not survive any political attacks during budget appropriations. The public dissatisfaction with the direction of R&D is always a source of contention in America, our argumentative system often requires us to give equal credence to both sides of an argument, even when one side may not be as scientifically or technically accurate. Fear mongering in the press can also help sink basic research on the premise of worst case scenarios or low probability events that the public weighs as equally likely with higher probability actions. The risk of upstream engagement is the exclusion of science with unclear future results. This risk must be managed to ensure that good science still gets the resources it deserves to flourish.
Democratizing science can involve increased upstream participation of the general public and benefit policy makers by avoiding market rejection of technology and other misappropriations of resources. The nature of politics in the US however is a fickle beast and upstream visibility ensures that no matter how beneficial your proposed solution, it will draw enemies and resistance in public policy, if for no other reason, than it may take resources away from some other priority. The shift in policy modulation to starting with a governance mindset can also draw in the networks of actors required to make a system more attractive to policy makers. In our class discussion on this topic we examined the European model, where networks of resources from differing countries and diverse backgrounds were awarded projects and grants to aide in the distribution of scientific capability and ensure equitable distribution of R&D euros. The US could take lessons from this policy for basic research and increase project funding from the principal investigator model to the project team model more frequently. This may already be happening in basic science circles, and certainly happens frequently in large technology development programs.
Centers and consortium in the university and foundation space seem to be learning to bid projects more collaboratively, but are still tied to the principal investigator or co-investigator awarded the grant. This provides a good control point to ensure efficient distribution of funds and monitor the projects for midstream, adjustments. In large industry, federal agencies have learned to distribute effort throughout several states in order to keep a critical mass of members of congress on board. This is sometimes referred to as “keeping the program sold”. If there is not a core group of interested parties in place to defend a program, it may not survive any political attacks during budget appropriations. The public dissatisfaction with the direction of R&D is always a source of contention in America, our argumentative system often requires us to give equal credence to both sides of an argument, even when one side may not be as scientifically or technically accurate. Fear mongering in the press can also help sink basic research on the premise of worst case scenarios or low probability events that the public weighs as equally likely with higher probability actions. The risk of upstream engagement is the exclusion of science with unclear future results. This risk must be managed to ensure that good science still gets the resources it deserves to flourish.
Trust the Man in the White Lab Coat, He is Your Friend: or, Restoring Public Faith in Science
Science in the 20th century produced miracles. Physicists discovered the fundamental building blocks of the universe, chemists invented almost every modern object with plastics, biologists cracked the genetic code, and engineers literally flew to the moon. But at some point, the relationship between science and society went off the rails. Maybe it was a variety of food scares in the European Union, or perhaps the mandatory climate change denial for American conservatives. But whatever the cause, scientists lost the public trust. Those us who account ourselves policy realists believe that accurate science is vital to proper policy formation. How then, can the public trust in science be restored?
In “See-Through-Science”, James Wilson and Rebecca Willis of Demos argue that public engagement with science has to move upstream. Rather than scientific knowledge flowing from the technical elite to an accepting public, scientists and ordinary people should be talking about the values, visions, and vested interests of emerging fields of research as early as possible. The goal is to create better, more socially robust, science that doesn’t clash with public values at a later date, such as occurred with embryonic stem cell research. The idea is to re-engage people with the scientific ideas that will drive the future.
“Taking European Knowledge Society Serious” is a similar effort by a star-studded EU academic panel to diagnose how European science can be both socially responsive and a driver of innovation in the 21st century. Their recommendations are far reaching, but center around the idea that ‘risk assessment’ has to incorporate broader values, and that political elites should be careful that they don’t predetermine the framings of scientific controversy.
Personally, I’m doubtful of the ability of citizens’ juries, value mapping, or the other kinds of participatory efforts to positively alter the course of science, or the relationship between science and society. The day to day activities of science are fairly dull for those who are not already invested in them. Public participation would pick from the same select pool as criminal juries; the retired, the unemployed, and the flakey, and the effects of participation would not extend beyond their immediate social network. Science is driven by foremost, the immutable facts of nature, and their discovery and use. Secondly, it is driven by priority of novel results and the internal advancement of scientists within the community, and finally, it is driven by money, and the decisions by which grant panels, venture capitalists, and corporate executive allocate money. According to liberal political and economic theory, democracy and the free market already serve as adequate proxies for ‘public participation’ in deciding the direction of research.
But the weaknesses in these European STS policy pieces go deeper than an inability to alter the course of research. Rather, they don’t even attempt to figure out why the public distrusts science. This is a core issue, because without diagnosing the disease, there can be no purposeful attempt at a cure. And finding a cure is important, because the opposite of science is not apathy, but rather a particularly subversive and dangerous form of magical thinking.
People distrust science because science is inherently fallible. Every reversion of a theory, every recall of a new drug or product, every breakdown in a complex socio-technical system demonstrates that science is weaker than the magic thinking associated with religion, dark green ecocentrism, climate change denial, and neo-classical economics. The incomplete, esoteric, and contradictory nature of these beliefs systems is in fact their strength, since any failure in their magic can be explained away. Science, without these ambiguities, must suffer until a paradigm shift.
A second aspect is the persistent disintegration of trust in our society. During the Cold War, political leaders (in alliance with scientists) were able to use the threat on immanent nuclear annihilation to create obedience. It is no surprise that the decline in the credibility of science happened at the same time as defense intellectuals were rendered irrelevant by the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. People began to look for new theories that matched their own personal beliefs, that weren’t as hard to understand and didn’t change as rapidly as science. A few canny politicos realized that by destroying civic trust and the belief in an empirical, historical past, they could craft the past anew each election cycle, avoiding all responsibility for their mistakes. And so far, we’ve been rich enough and robust enough not to suffer any existential disasters from thinking magically, despite the purposeless wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan, the flooding of New Orleans, the financial collapse, the BP oil spill, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, etc etc.
The problem with directly attacking false beliefs and magical thinking is this tends to alienate the audience you are trying to court, and may even entrench their status as an oppressed minority. However, changing minds is very, very hard, and the first priority must be stopping the spread of the infection. We can’t censor, but we can ridicule, and demand to see the credentials of these peddlers of false beliefs. The ideals of equality and neutrality espoused by the mainstream media are fictions which have stopped being strictly useful. Bullshit must be publically exposed as such. Perhaps we need a new journalism award, the Golden Shovel, for the best demolition of bullshit and lies.
At the same time, we need to recast public education towards a realistic understanding of the limits of science, technology, and state power. People have impossible expectations for science, they demand that it solve ill-formed problems, such as those dealing with the regulation of potentially toxic chemicals, in the absence of useful models. Or they want their drugs safe, effective, and now. Or they believe the Federal government has the power to plug a hole thousands of feet beneath the sea. At the same times as people learn about the limits of science, they should also be taught about the line between falsifiable science, and unfalsifiable magical thinking. Of course, this will not be easy, especially at a high school level. I barely am even coming to grips with these issues, and I’ve spent several years studying them. But more important than any factual knowledge, is the ability to reason, to think critically, and to distinguish valid arguments from invalid one. Until every member of the public can articulate their values, and the supporting evidence for them, efforts to input public values into science will be useless at best.
In “See-Through-Science”, James Wilson and Rebecca Willis of Demos argue that public engagement with science has to move upstream. Rather than scientific knowledge flowing from the technical elite to an accepting public, scientists and ordinary people should be talking about the values, visions, and vested interests of emerging fields of research as early as possible. The goal is to create better, more socially robust, science that doesn’t clash with public values at a later date, such as occurred with embryonic stem cell research. The idea is to re-engage people with the scientific ideas that will drive the future.
“Taking European Knowledge Society Serious” is a similar effort by a star-studded EU academic panel to diagnose how European science can be both socially responsive and a driver of innovation in the 21st century. Their recommendations are far reaching, but center around the idea that ‘risk assessment’ has to incorporate broader values, and that political elites should be careful that they don’t predetermine the framings of scientific controversy.
Personally, I’m doubtful of the ability of citizens’ juries, value mapping, or the other kinds of participatory efforts to positively alter the course of science, or the relationship between science and society. The day to day activities of science are fairly dull for those who are not already invested in them. Public participation would pick from the same select pool as criminal juries; the retired, the unemployed, and the flakey, and the effects of participation would not extend beyond their immediate social network. Science is driven by foremost, the immutable facts of nature, and their discovery and use. Secondly, it is driven by priority of novel results and the internal advancement of scientists within the community, and finally, it is driven by money, and the decisions by which grant panels, venture capitalists, and corporate executive allocate money. According to liberal political and economic theory, democracy and the free market already serve as adequate proxies for ‘public participation’ in deciding the direction of research.
But the weaknesses in these European STS policy pieces go deeper than an inability to alter the course of research. Rather, they don’t even attempt to figure out why the public distrusts science. This is a core issue, because without diagnosing the disease, there can be no purposeful attempt at a cure. And finding a cure is important, because the opposite of science is not apathy, but rather a particularly subversive and dangerous form of magical thinking.
People distrust science because science is inherently fallible. Every reversion of a theory, every recall of a new drug or product, every breakdown in a complex socio-technical system demonstrates that science is weaker than the magic thinking associated with religion, dark green ecocentrism, climate change denial, and neo-classical economics. The incomplete, esoteric, and contradictory nature of these beliefs systems is in fact their strength, since any failure in their magic can be explained away. Science, without these ambiguities, must suffer until a paradigm shift.
A second aspect is the persistent disintegration of trust in our society. During the Cold War, political leaders (in alliance with scientists) were able to use the threat on immanent nuclear annihilation to create obedience. It is no surprise that the decline in the credibility of science happened at the same time as defense intellectuals were rendered irrelevant by the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. People began to look for new theories that matched their own personal beliefs, that weren’t as hard to understand and didn’t change as rapidly as science. A few canny politicos realized that by destroying civic trust and the belief in an empirical, historical past, they could craft the past anew each election cycle, avoiding all responsibility for their mistakes. And so far, we’ve been rich enough and robust enough not to suffer any existential disasters from thinking magically, despite the purposeless wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan, the flooding of New Orleans, the financial collapse, the BP oil spill, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, etc etc.
The problem with directly attacking false beliefs and magical thinking is this tends to alienate the audience you are trying to court, and may even entrench their status as an oppressed minority. However, changing minds is very, very hard, and the first priority must be stopping the spread of the infection. We can’t censor, but we can ridicule, and demand to see the credentials of these peddlers of false beliefs. The ideals of equality and neutrality espoused by the mainstream media are fictions which have stopped being strictly useful. Bullshit must be publically exposed as such. Perhaps we need a new journalism award, the Golden Shovel, for the best demolition of bullshit and lies.
At the same time, we need to recast public education towards a realistic understanding of the limits of science, technology, and state power. People have impossible expectations for science, they demand that it solve ill-formed problems, such as those dealing with the regulation of potentially toxic chemicals, in the absence of useful models. Or they want their drugs safe, effective, and now. Or they believe the Federal government has the power to plug a hole thousands of feet beneath the sea. At the same times as people learn about the limits of science, they should also be taught about the line between falsifiable science, and unfalsifiable magical thinking. Of course, this will not be easy, especially at a high school level. I barely am even coming to grips with these issues, and I’ve spent several years studying them. But more important than any factual knowledge, is the ability to reason, to think critically, and to distinguish valid arguments from invalid one. Until every member of the public can articulate their values, and the supporting evidence for them, efforts to input public values into science will be useless at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)