View
712
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
seminar given at National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT),
Tokyo, 29th August 2012
Andy StirlingSPRU & STEPS Centre
Ambiguous Evidence:
implications of uncertainty for science policy
- The Economist
`
“we'll restore science to its rightful place”… - President Obama
“Our hope … relies on scientific and technological progress” - Premier Wen Jiabao
PROGRESS
“you can’t stop progress” …
“One can not impede scientific progress.” - President Ahmadinejad
Conventional Technology Policy
all innovation is progress…
Lisbon Strategy for: “pro-innovation action”
- EU Council of Ministers
“we need more pro-innovation policies” - PM Gordon
Brown
“… the Government’s strategy is … pro-innovation” - PM David Cameron
TECHNOLOGY
Lord Alec Broers, President, RAEng
…“history is a race to advance technology”
Technology:
“will determine the future of the human race’”
The challenge of government:
“to strive to stay in the race”…
The role of the public:
“to give technology the status it deserves”…
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
Conventional Technology Policy
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
Conventional Technology Policy
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives… no politics … no choice !
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
Conventional Technology Policy
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !
Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast? … who leads?
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
Conventional Technology Policy
TECHNOLOGY
Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !
Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast?’ … who leads?
Seriously neglects questions over: which way? …what alternatives? says who? …why?
PROGRESS
Conventional Technology Policy
For instance... “sustainable energy”
Technological Progress is Evolutionary
Not all that is conceivable, feasible, viable – will be fully realisable
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
social shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03) studies: expectations (Brown, 03) imaginations (Jasanoff, 05)
Technological Progress
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83)path-dependence (David, 85) path creation
(Karnoe, 01)
Technological Progress
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
philosophy: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91)/politics entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02)
Technological Progress
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
economics: homeostasis (Sahal, 85) lock-in (Arthur, 89) regimes (Nelson & Winter, 77) trajectories (Dosi,
82)
Technological Progress
‘Sound Science’ in Policy and Regulation
on chemicals:“ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…” - EC RTD Commissioner, Philippe Busquin
on genetic modification:
“… this government's approach is to make decisions … on the basis of sound science”
- former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair
on energy:
“[n]ow is the right time for a cool-headed, evidence based assessment … I want to sweep away historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science”
former UK Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks
Justification: from political ‘problems’ to technical ‘puzzles’
on public health:
“… sound science … science-based decisions” - UN WHO DG Margaret Chan
Ambiguity in Evidence
Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
0.001 0.1 10 1000externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)low RISK high
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
biomass
Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Ambiguity in Evidence
0.001 0.1 10 1000
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
21
wind
solar
biomass
n =
‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)
minimum maximum25% 75%
low RISK high
Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Ambiguity in Evidence
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
36
20
wind 18
solar 11
biomass 22
31
21
16
n =
Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Ambiguity in Evidence
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional ‘risk practices’ suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
` marginalises, elides, ignores, (often) denies radical openness of ‘incertitude’:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action . Aristotle, Kant, Habermas know-how is less important than know-why
– eg: how to apply neuroscience?
Knowing Knowledge
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
` - incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects . Lao Tzu, Socrates, Keynes ‘unknowns’ as important as ‘knowns’
– eg: unexpected
mechanisms
in nanohealth
technologies
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
- indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise . Gödel, Dosi, Collingridge ”known knowns” foster hubris
– eg: dangers of thinking we know
halogenated hydrocarbons,
CFCs and the ozone hole
endocrine disruptors
methyl tertbutyl ether
- incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action
- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance . Einstein, Ravetz, Beck… area / perimeter of known
– nonlinear
dynamics
of climate
and oceans
` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance
- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability . Ellul, Wynne, Tenner not existence but exposure to unknown
eg: nuclear
dependency
- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action
` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability
- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting . Kuhn, Arrow, Jasanoff… knowledge often not linear / additive
- eg: agronomy, ecology, soil science, molecular biology on GM
- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance
- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action
` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting
representing incomplete knowledge as expert ‘risk’ is deeply problematic
- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance
- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability
- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action
` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise
` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:
` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action
Knowing Knowledge
` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’
unproblematic
problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Smithson, Ravetz, Wynne ...
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
engineered components closed deterministic systems high frequency incidents familiar contexts
open dynamic systems low frequency events human factors changing contexts
INCERTITUDE
Beyond Risk contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Smithson, Ravetz, Wynne ...
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
engineered components closed deterministic systems high frequency incidents familiar contexts
open dynamic systems low frequency events human factors changing contexts
defining pros & cons contrasting impacts
diverse perspectives alternative options
novel agents or vectors surprising conditions new alternatives
wilful blinkers
INCERTITUDE
Beyond Risk contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY aggregative analysis patronage, pressure political closure
insurance limitsreductive modelsstochastic reasoning
` science-based policy
institutional remits
political cultureliability protection
harm definitions indicators / metrics IGNORANCE
risk focus is shaped by power – Beck’s “organised irresponsibility”
Pressures for Closure institutional drivers of risk assessment
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
Methods for ‘Opening Up’
precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude
precaution and participation are about rigour
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
knowledge about possibilities
Methods for ‘Opening Up’
precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude
precaution and participation are about rigour
scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling
mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation
democratic procedures
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
knowledge about possibilities
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
Methods for ‘Opening Up’
precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude
precaution and participation are about rigour
unproblematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
knowledge about possibilities
Methods for ‘Opening Up’
responsive civic research curiosity monitoring,
evidentiary presumptions flexibility, reversibility
diversity, resilience, agility, adaptability
scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling
mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation
democratic procedures
problematic UNCERTAINTY
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude
precaution and participation are about rigour
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
precautionary appraisal
participatory deliberation
definitive prescription
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
knowledge about possibilities
Op
tion
s
Op
tion
s
humility reflexivity
adaptive learning
sustainability
safety
‘opening up’: options, issues, approaches, possibilities, perspectives
‘Opening Up’ Incertitude precaution and participation are about rigour
Risks of different agricultural strategiesunder assumptions of selection of UK expert policy advisers
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
Plural Conditional Advice
Risks of different agricultural strategiesunder assumptions of selection of UK expert policy advisers
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
high risk low
Plural Conditional Advice
Risks of different agricultural strategiesunder assumptions of selection of UK expert policy advisers
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
GOVERNMENT
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
high risk low
Plural Conditional Advice
Risks of different agricultural strategiesunder assumptions of selection of UK expert policy advisers
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
high risk low
Plural Conditional Advice
Risks of different agricultural strategiesunder assumptions of selection of UK expert policy advisers
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY
organic
environmental
intensive
GM + labelling
GM + monitoring
GM + voluntary controls
PUBLIC INTEREST
high risk low
Plural Conditional Advice
technological ‘lock-in’
institutionalised technical risk assessment
multiple feasible
Innovation trajectories
restricted appreciation
innovation union knowledge economy
‘closed down’ ‘sound scientific advice’ ‘evidence based’ policy
POSSIBLE PATHWAYS
pressures for justification force unitary ‘‘expert’
prescriptions
presumed benefits case-by-case focus narrow remits aggregated attention regulatory capture technocratic procedures
risk
narrow scope ‘independent’ research ‘pro-innovation’ culture
Op
tion
s$IIIIII
privileged visions
‘Opening Up’ Technology Governance
single ‘best’ / ‘optimal’ / most ‘legitimate’
decisions
€
IIIIII
$IIIIII
$IIIIIIIIIIII
$
POSSIBLE PATHWAYS
diverse pathways
knowledge democracy
broad-based evidence as choice
‘opening up’ politics of innovation
‘best option’ depends on: contexts, perspectives,
sensitivities, scenarios,
- ‘plural conditional’ public policy advice Sustainability
O
ptio
ns
choice discourse
help catalyse: democratic accountability context sensitivity
social robustness
extended participation
transdisciplinary deliberation
explicit priorities uncertainties
multiple options
diversity in technology portfolios
‘Opening Up’ Technology Governance
Recommended