Science and Representation

Kevin Margeson
HSD 501 – Science and Democracy, Dr. Miller
Weekly Reading Brief 6 – Feb 25, 2011
Science and Representation

Do we elect representatives to express their will or the will of their constituents? In the practice of American democracy and the execution of our civic discourse I often hear people advocate mutually exclusive points of view on this, The new catch phrase “Elections have consequences.” has been bandied about by the right, who also vehemently oppose most of the positions espoused by the current administration. This is certainly not limited to the right, but it is an example of the sometimes contradictory view of how we want our representatives to express our desires. We have discussed how American government is based on the idea that an informed public will generally make the right decision given accurate information. (and after exhausting all other options, as Churchill pointed out.)

The representatives that make decisions on the behalf of the population often have to deal with technical issues filtered through the lens of the media, which informs the general public. The media has adopted much of the adversarial style of debate of our public forum giving equal time to opposing points of view. But I have to ask is this the best way of debating public issues. Do we need give equal time to minority opinions in scientific debates? Do we need to give credence to those who adopt positions so far out of the mainstream of scientific opinion that they border on the irrational? Would Galileo have passed that test? Or Newton? Or Curie? The public and official positions were against them as well and their viewpoints eventually made the forefront of scientific knowledge.

In today’s world of media coverage, the perception of policy related scientific issues like global warming, healthcare issues such as breast cancer screening, and even energy exploration all get media spin based on public outrage, corporate image making, and political party maneuvering.

This weekend I happened to be watching Gasland on HBO, a documentary on natural gas exploration and the devastation it has caused in rural areas and the potential dangers and impacts or fracture gas exploration. Not too long after that film, I was watching This Week from ABC News, which always has a big corporate image type of sponsor, and sure enough the American Petroleum Institute had several public information announcements wildly expressing the public benefit of the natural gas industry. So the public is receiving vastly varied opinions on most technical and scientific issues from credible sources with official sounding names. Officials will be receiving position advice from varying interest groups and constituents with passionate views informed by these divergent opinions. Who are they to believe? And should they disclose the source of that decision? I believe they should be required to cite specific sources to ensure disclosure, but those sources may be cloaked with media spin as much as their messages.

The de-politicization of science

ASU Biodesign Institute held a conference today titled “Dangerous Liaisons: Dual Use Research in the 20^th Century” that addresses the role of regulation in research that can be utilized formally in a laboratory or can be taken out of the lab and used to incite harmful results. A common example of this is portrayed in biotechnology and the ability to recreate eradicated diseases and the powerful potential of this information and knowledge. In retrospect of today’s lecture by Dr. Miller, I was confronted with the idea of the de-politicization of science that was mentioned by Mark Brown in his book Science in Democracy. Here the author examines the claim that “science has been politicized implies it was previously not political. And assuming that politicization is reversible, things that have become political can be depoliticized as well.” If science has become politicized, is it possible to depoliticize it and if so than is the response to dual research serving as an example of this de-politicization?

There were four specialists that presented at the dual research conference and the person of interest to this discussion, in my opinion, was Edward H. You (FBI Supervisory Special Agent, Bioterrorism Program, Countermeasures Unit I). He was involved in the creation of a self-regulatory government system that allows researchers to provide information about suspect persons or actions regarding dual use research that may pose a risk to the general public. What was surprising about this move by the FBI is the severity of the situation regarding research information and the amount responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the science community, it allows them to self-regulate within their lab or the science community. This group emphasized government regulation without involvement. Instead of directly regulating science, the government chose to support researchers through assistance reflecting a situation where neither power nor conflict was involved, making it fall into Mark Brown’s category of non-politics. The government agency recognized the importance of the science community in informing policy and wanted to address the situation without restricting science, as is the case with increased regulations and obstacles to funding. They were aware of the negative impact this would have upon research initiatives. Furthermore, it seemed that there was an honest sense of collaboration between the government agency and researchers on this topic and a collaborative initiative to educate researchers on awareness of the dual use of their work. In addition to creating a situation of informed researchers, the agency recognized the need to create a space where the public could get involved in science research to encourage the progress of science. The approach that this particular government agency took to address issues of research that could very easily have demanded legislative restrictions demonstrates what may be a new era of learning to trust scientists to self regulate in the interest of the community and thus create a situation that may lead to the de-politicization of science.

Multifaceted Approaches to Participatory Governance

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.

Democrats, Experts, and STS

Governing is no easy task. While in some idealized, Athenian past, every decision required of the body politic might have drawn solely on common sense, these days every decision is intertwined with knowledge known only to specialists in the relevant field; it is locked behind walls of expertise. The body politic, if it is not to flail randomly in an insensate throes, must rely on the advice of experts. How then can rule by a small elite be reconciled with democracy?

The modern expert advisor is the spiritual descendant of Machiavelli. The brutally realist Italian revolutionized the Mirror for Princes genre, speaking directly in the vernacular, and cloaking his rhetoric in an objective "view from nowhere." To prove his credibility, Machiavelli erased himself, claiming merely to transmit the facts of history and psychology into applicable lessons on power. Early scientists, as exemplified by the British Royal Society of Boyle's era, used the same technique to 'merely transmit the facts of nature,' displaying for the public that which was self-evidently true.

The Machiavellian advisor works primarily at the point of power, at the person of the sovereign, but in a modern democracy, the sovereign is a fiction. The people rule, through their representatives. Though the relation of the people and their representatives is far from straightforward, (representatives speak for the people, make decisions for the people, and serve as targets of blame for the people, among their diverse function), a representative who strays too far from the desires of his or her constituents will soon fall. Therefore, expert advice applied at this level, once it departs from common knowledge, becomes useless. The experts and those who listen to them will be discarded at the first opportunity.

Instead, in a democracy, experts must also address the validity of their claims to the public. The end product of advice, and the advisory process itself, must appear credible. Science (roughly, the process of discovering facts about the natural world) in it's Enlightenment legacy, and the scientifically derived technologies around us, is one means of certifying the validity of expert claims, and representative decisions. Yet, because scientific claims speak to fundamental truths about the world, and can thereby override deliberation, astute politicians have learned to deploy counter-claims and counter-experts. Moreover, political figures has disseminated a narrative that discredits the ability of science to make any epistemically true and relevant claims about the world.

How then can scientists operate in a climate of such hostility? Dewey provides an model; by visualizing society as composed of a network of identities, with individuals belonging to multiple identities at once, he suggests that science can be democratized by tying as many people as possible to the "scientist" network. But what exactly is it that individuals should be educated in? There is no way for people to learn more than a scanty sampling of science. Rather, the chief science, the skill of kings, is learning to evaluate experts and their claims. There are universal patterns to how expert knowledge is created, and the vitamin that the body politic needs today is not more public scientific knowledge, but more public science, technology, and society scholarship.