Different forms of  expertisein democratising

technological cultures and experiences from the  current Societal Dialogue on

Nanotechnologies in the Netherlands

Different forms of  expertisein democratising

technological cultures and experiences from the  current Societal Dialogue on

Nanotechnologies in the Netherlands

Wiebe E. BijkerMaastricht University

Giannino Bassetti FoundationMilano, May 2010

2

“We live in a Technological Culture”“We live in a Technological Culture”

We cannot hope tounderstand society without understanding the role of technoscience

We cannot hope to apply science and to design working technologies

without understanding

their role in society

3

QuestionQuestion

How to democratize technological culture while:• Building on the insights of STS (SSK,

SCOT, boundary work, ...)• Making use of the specific qualities of

various forms of expertise, including scientific and engineering expertise

Or:

Is there still a role for scientific advice?

4

Background in STS(Science, Technology and Society studies)

Background in STS(Science, Technology and Society studies)

• SSK scientific knowledge:• Is socially constructed• Has no a priori special status

• SCOT technology:• Is socially constructed• Does not have any intrinsic

obduracy

5

Case-study:Health Council of the Netherlands

Case-study:Health Council of the Netherlands

• Strategic research site

• Our project:• Impact on society ethnography

• International generalization

WhatWhat isis the societal influence of the Health Council?

How bigHow bigis the societal influenceof the Health Council?

In what wayIn what way does the Health Council

exercise influence?

The Health Council of the Netherlands

The Health Council of the Netherlands

• Task: to advice Dutch government on the ‘state of knowledge’ concerning public health

• Established in 1902: 100th anniversary on 8 October 2002

• Works mainly through a committee process• Highly respected: • in scientific and policy circles, and among

professional organisations• nationally and internationally

Key conceptsKey concepts

• Constructed character of scientific knowledge

• Frontstage — backstage• Co-ordination mechanisms and tools• Problem definition• Committee composition• Committee process• Rhetorical and literary techniques• Distribution management and repair work

9

1. Scientific advising2. Risk governance of

nanotechnologies3. Societal dialogue on

nano

10

Theory of scientific advising*Theory of scientific advising*

Specifies scientific advising as:

• Product • Work• Process

* Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009) Paradox of Scientific Authority: the role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11

Product of Scientific AdvisingProduct of Scientific Advising

Advisory report:

• Front stage identity

• Scientific, but not like research:Serviceable truth: Scientific knowledge, which is tuned to

policy making(e.g. GBF, Scienza e Governance, 2008)

12

Work of scientific advisingWork of scientific advising

• Backstage activity• Boundary work (Gieryn, Jasanoff, Guston)

+• Social in addition to rhetorical• Within restrictive conditions, and not in complete control• Bridging boundaries after delineating them• In a variety of domains (not only science—policy)

• Coordination mechanisms:

Inseparable acts of distinguishing and coordinating

Coordination mechanisms Coordination mechanisms

• Problem definition• Selection committee members• Disciplines involved• Committee shaping• Civil servants as advisers• Disclosure procedure• Contacts HC-ministries• Committee chairing• Concept development• Hearings• Writing• Product differentiation

• Speed vs depth• Adaption to political agenda

• Confidentiality / openness• Transparency

• At HV level• At committee level

• Information on committee process

• President’s letter• Press policy• Relations to other advisory

agencies and research institutes

• International relations

14

Scientific advising in ProcessScientific advising in Process

How to position scientific advising in the wider process of democratic (risk) governance?

Case:

risk governance in nanotechnologies

15

1. Scientific advising2. Risk governance of

nanotechnologies3. Societal dialogue on

nano

16

Vulnerability :Vulnerability :

• … is a characteristic of technological cultures:• Vulnerability is caused by S&T• S&T help to harness vulnerability

• … is inevitable:• As unintended consequence of S&T • As prerequisite for innovation, learning,

flexibility, development, ...

17

Risk is more than a number:Risk is more than a number:

• Depending on definitions and boundaries• Varying with perceptions• Value-laden• Scientific knowledge is not always certain

Risk communication

Risk governance

18

Shift of paradigm:Shift of paradigm:

Risk communication:

• Risk is hard fact that needs to be explained better to lay public

• Citizen is stupid

• One-way communication

Risk governance:

• Should acknowledge:• Plurality of knowledge• (Un)certainty of scientific

knowledge

• Addition to 19th century constitution of democracy

• Two-way communication

19

Risk Governance: core ideaRisk Governance: core idea

• Classify risk situations• For each risk situation, there is an

appropriate:• Approach of risk management • Set of involved experts/groups• Set of possible risk management & policy

instruments

• Continuously monitor S&T developments and risk situations

What is ‘nano’?What is ‘nano’?

• Nano science and technologies: • Scale 1-100 nm• Top-down + bottom-up approaches• High expectations; yet few commercial

applications (sun crèmes, tires, opto-electrical layers,

aseptic layers, ...) • Heterogeneous, enabling technologies

• Promises and risks?• Nothing new, merely very small?• Fundamentally new phenomena?

New problem(due to special character of [nano-] developments)

New problem(due to special character of [nano-] developments)

• Promising developments that deserve support

• Serious indication for damage, but no firm scientific evidence yet

• Unclear to what extent existing rules & regulations are adequate

Dilemma of nanotechnologiesDilemma of nanotechnologies

(applies to many new technologies)

If problems surface, momentum of technologies has built up so that they

are difficult to change

When technologies can be changed, problems have not yet become clear 22

23

Risk Governance: classificationRisk Governance: classification

Risk-situation Approach Involved groups(and their specific

expertises)

Simple Routine Scientists (institutes)

Complex Information ..... +Scientists (NGO’s)

Uncertain Precaution ..... +Stakeholders

Ambiguous Discourse ..... +Citizens

24

But, of course:But, of course:

Risk-situation Approach Involved groups

Simple Routine Scientists (institutes)

Complex Information ..... +Scientists (NGO’s)

Uncertain Precaution ..... +Stakeholders

Ambiguous Discourse ..... +Citizens

Who decides?Who decides?

25

‘triage’ of risk & expertise‘triage’ of risk & expertise

Broad monitoring committeeAdvises government on nanotechnologies’ state of

the art and associated risk classification

With heterogeneous membership of citizens, stakeholders, scientific & technical experts

Health Council

Public Debates

Sector Councils

.....

26

1. Scientific advising2. Risk governance of

nanotechnologies3. Societal dialogue on

nano

DutchSocietal Dialogue on Nano

DutchSocietal Dialogue on Nano • Open agenda and participation• Organizing Committee is independent• Means:

• Information distribution• Awareness building• Dialogue

• Outcome: “Dutch societal agenda nanotechnologies”• Timing:

• Public activities: April-October 2010• Final report with societal agenda: December 2010

Initial themes for dialogueInitial themes for dialogue

• Ethics• Health (opportunities and risks)• Environment• Sustainable economic growth• Distribution• Security, privacy and vulnerability

ProjectsProjects

29

Information

•I know nano: Nano in 2nd school

•Books•TV programs•Exhibitions•Touring lab bus•Animal experiments

Awareness

• Nano in the baby room

• Theatre plays• Artistic

reflections on nano

• Vignets & scenario’s

Dialogue

•Nano LinX – school debates on nano

•Web debates•Science cafés•Nano and religion•Nano law and peace

30

Conclusion (1):on Expertise & Democracy Conclusion (1):

on Expertise & Democracy

1. Democratic technological cultures need balancing of different kinds of expertise

2. Our ‘theory of scientific advising’ provides a framework to discuss and shape this ‘balancing’

For example:

It points to the need for institutions such as the Health Council of the Netherlands, or the US National Academy of Sciences

31

Conclusion (2):on case-study

Conclusion (2):on case-study

Institutions like the Health Council :

• serve democracy by providing an (‘undemocratically’) secluded space for scientific debate and advising

• create trust in scientific expertise while reflexively and consciously recognizing a constructivist epistemology

32

Conclusion (3):on nanotechnology dialogueConclusion (3):

on nanotechnology dialogue

No conclusion yet,

keep fingers crossed…

You can try your Dutch on:

http://www.nanopodium.nl

33

Conclusion (4):on new forms of democracyConclusion (4):

on new forms of democracy

• Experiments on democracy are needed

• To build towards a new constitution for democracy in technological cultures

• Because we do not want to leave societal development to be determined (solely) by technoscience

34

References References

• Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). Paradox of Scientific Authority: the role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Reviewed by Alessandro Colombo, IReR, in Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice)

• Bijker, W. E. (2006). Why and How Technology Matters. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (pp. 681-706). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made? -That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63-76.

• Bijker, W. E., & d'Andrea, L. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook on the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. A tool for promoting science and technology socialisation policies addressed to policy makers, research and innovation actors and stakeholders. Brussels: EU.

• Gezondheidsraad. (2006). Health Significance of Nanotechnologies (No. 2006/06E). Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad.

• Bijker, W. E. (2004). Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands. History and Technology, 20(4), 371–391.

• Bijker, W. E. (1998). La bicicletta e altre Innovazioni. Milano: McGraw-Hill Libri Italia.

35

http://www.fdcw.unimaas.nl/staff/bijker

36

Precautionary principle:Precautionary principle:

Act (including possibility of non-intervention) :

• because there are scientific indications of serious damage

• although there is insufficient scientific knowledge

37

Discussion of PrecautionDiscussion of Precaution

• Two versions:• Strong: “if no proof of safety, do not apply”• Weak: “lack of certain knowledge is no reason to abstain

from intervention”

• Burden of proof:• Reversal?• Redistribution!

• Evaluation: between extremes such as• “the end of all innovation ! ”• “at last we can stop capitalist technology-push ! ”

• Problem: when and how to apply?(cf. Wittgenstein)

backstage

frontstage

Coordination-mechanismsscience

policy

interests

knowledge

Civil servant as

advisorhearings

A ‘third position’?A ‘third position’?

societal problems

political decision-making

democracy

HC

third position

shortest route

technocracy

Third position, characterization:Third position, characterization:

• Third position = Detour :lends distance:• To politics• To acute societal problems

but is serviceable to both

• Third position = different genre by itself: scientific advising:• Creating hybrids (advice = science + policy)• Take “academic time” for political issues

• Third position is:• Necessary for democracy• Only possible in democracy