Science in Democracy was a fascinating read. It tells the familiar tale of the rise of scientific institutions through a thoroughly Western viewpoint, referencing all of the dominant names in the scientific revolution (and related political theorists). I enjoyed the section on Rousseau as On the Social Contract has been sitting on my shelf for years unread. I thought the concept of general will being an internal phenomenon was interesting. Rousseau contrasts the general will with opinions or interests which “may be easily shared” (77). He also points out that the general will is expressed by the people through a lack of debate in the public sphere. While I find this intriguing, I have to say there are numerous influences which impact what may or may not be discussed in the public sphere such as taboos (stemming from an ongoing redefinition of culture), as well as ignorance to a certain topic, among other things. He implies that the act of communication with others alone impacts our ideas about civic matters. While I certainly think it can intensify it, I would not argue that lack of vigorous discussion leaves one closed off to changing “general will”.
The question of the level of participatory governance has been a theme this week. At a seminar on Wednesday, Elisabeth Graffy of the USGS described the politics surrounding energy research within that institution. She mentioned the fact that there are many people working on bits and pieces of the energy puzzle, but nobody is thinking through it comprehensively (this echoes calls from a former seminar reference for a more integrated decision-making or knowledge-sharing process within public utilities between the engineers and the businesspeople). She said that a strategic plan must come from universities if any place because these institutions are somehow better suited to take a holistic approach than governmental agencies charged with specific tasks for which funding may not be available for this type of investigation. Discussed was the proper balance of public input and information. Too much public deliberation could cause fatigue, while not enough potentially causes backlash. Questions were raised as to the current best practices actually in place as opposed to what did not work. We did not find an example in the seminar, but I am sure they exist.
Brown calls for multifaceted approach stating, “Participation in the politics of science and technology should avoid becoming fixed on any particular institutional venue” (222). As we have discussed in class, public hearings oftentimes only allow “scientifically justifiable” evidence to be examined. This leaves out a host of other issues which could potentially radically alter peoples (and nonhuman actors’) existence. This sentiment was also captured in Graffy’s talk about the energy problem when she said that, “We say there are no silver bullets but we act as though there might be”. Pursuing many angles simultaneously (in nearly any problem solving strategy) is in my opinion advantageous, and I think Brown is right to suggest that there is a danger in funneling all citizen input into one place.
Brown suggests that “when scientists, engineers, doctors and other experts engage with laypeople’s demands, they become those people’s representatives” (259). This is an interesting statement. I would say that it is the responsibility of the expert once new perspectives come to light to carefully consider them. Not only during civic engagement activities, but prior to them as well (which I suppose goes without saying if these institutions deem it desirable to even begin a process like this.
Isn’t it nice when e-mails perfectly illustrate your point? This morning I saw this blurb in the GIOS Sustainability Digest:
“12th Annual Evidence-Based Practice Conference Call for Papers
(Thursday-Friday, June 9-10, 2011) Submit your abstract to the conference to be held in Phoenix. The theme is Using Evidence to Impact Policy and Practice. For more information and to submit abstracts go to http://nursingandhealth.asu.edu/evidence-based-practice/conference”
Apparently this is a training program for nurses at ASU, but the description was so filled with buzzwords, like “change”, and “innovation” that I couldn’t actually figure out what it meant and the link to the conference was broken. Overall, I found this book to be an interesting introduction (to me) of democratizing science.
No comments:
Post a Comment