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.
No comments:
Post a Comment