Harnessing Science and Technology for our Future : Policy-making on innovations in science, technology and democracy Wiebe E. Bijker Universiteit Maastricht København, Parliament, June 16, 2012
When Science and Technology come into Parliament Harnessing Science & Technology for our Future Policy-making on Innovations in Science, Technology and Democracy 2
We live in a technological culture Society is built on S&T + S&T are shaped by society and culture Dikes, islands, polders Immigration control Economic and financial crisis Risk culture of flood management GM biotechnology society science & technology
enter politics! Shape our societies While doing what about S&T? Letting S&T run freely? (ostrich strategy) Handing societies over to engineers and scientists? (technocratic strategy) 4
enter politics! Shape our science & technology Owning and owning-up-to our S&T: Holding it to our societies agenda s (and thus making S&T contribute to societies goals) Recognizing science s necessary freedom (and not making S&T into hand-maiden of politics) 5
p arliamentary T echnology A ssessment enter politics! Shape our societies Shape our science & technology pta politics policy 6
Standard solution 1. Facts are provided by scientists 2. Values are added by politicians 3. Policies are implemented by bureaucrats does not work any more, because of: Complexities of societies and S&T Uncertainties in S&T Plurality of value and knowledge systems Different time-scales 7
Science-based policies + societally-inspired science TA: Provides scientific evidence to inform politics and policies: On facts, S&T developments, promises & risks On visions, opinions, interests TA: Highlights special character of modern S&T: complexity uncertainties plurality of visions and opinions conflicting interests long-term perspective of science versus short-term perspective of politics TA: Helps to innovate democracy to engage citizens with S&T in new ways 8
New risk-handling problem There are promising S&T developments that need to proceed There are indications of potential hazards, but without firm scientific proof Adequacy of current regulations is unclear
Challenge for democracy: How to democratically govern something that we do yet not know much about? Dilemma: Early dialogue with little knowledge? Later policy-making when more is known
Who should be involved? Societal dialogue Known risks (eg. Asbestos) Uncertain risks (eg. Nano particles) Ambiguous risks (eg. Human enhancement) Invite: Scientists Invite: Scientists + Stakeholders Invite: Scientists + Stakeholders + Citizens
Dutch experiment: 1. On democracy 2. On handling new science and technology Societal dialogue on nanotechnologies in The Netherlands (2009-2011) 12
We tried to make clear choices: Independent organising committee (but weak political mandate?) Broad spectrum of participants (but little attention to key actors?) Externalisation of activities (but lack of quality control?) Broad spectrum of media and means (but lack of focus?) Information Awareness Dialogue (but lack of politically relevant questions?)
Alert and agenda setting Ask scientific advice Approve advice request Advisory report on nano Workshop with MP s and stakeholders Order Societal Dialogue Approve Societal Dialogue Dialogue as part of governance process pta P P G ScAv time pta pta G P S G 14
Issues I have discussed The challenges of policy-making about science and technology innovation complex issues uncertainties about consequences plurality of visions and opinions conflicting interests long-term perspective of science versus short-term perspective of politics The need for knowledge-based policymaking (knowledge on facts, visions, opinions, interests) The role of TA to support knowledge-based policy-making The role of TA to innovate democracy and citizens participation
16
w.bijker@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Dialogue amongst participants 1. What are the challenges related to policy-making on science and technology issues? 2. How do policy-makers meet these challenges? 3. How could Technology Assessment support this?