Imagining the New - Universidad EAFIT

The New, the Good, and the Desirable Barriers and Opportunities for Social Appropriation Sheila Jasanoff Harvard University Social Appropriation of Science, Technology, and Innovation Universidad EAFIT, Medellin, October 20, 2007

What innovation, whose appropriation? 

ASCTI: descriptive or normative?  



Conventional wisdom  



Society does appropriate STI Society should appropriate STI Blurs distinction Blames society for lack of uptake

Contrary view 

Normative theories of appropriation need to be made explicit, unpacked, and critiqued

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

2

What Is Innovation? 

“Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.” 

   

Ted Kennedy, quoting Robert F. Kennedy (1968)

But what have we learned since 1968? Even dreamers need resources to dream with. Where do those resources come from? Who gets to do the dreaming? 10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

3

Social Contract 



10/20/10

The right to govern seen as a contract between ruler and ruled. The people give up some rights but hold the king or ruler to responsible exercise of powers.

Medellin-ASCTI

4

The Social Contract for Science 





10/20/10

Science--The Endless Frontier (1945) Basic research as “pacemaker of technological progress.” Contract: Funds and autonomy for science in exchange for innovation.

Medellin-ASCTI

5

Contractual Assumptions 

Central dogmas of US S&T policy after WWII:     

More science = more innovation More innovation (in science) = more social welfare National governments have a duty to foster S&T innovation S&T are self-regulating institutions and should be left free to set own agendas for innovation Imperfections exist in the ideal contract, but they can be rectified by three mechanisms of governance (market, regulation, ethics)

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

6

20th Century Technological Visions

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

7

“Big Science”: A Brief History 

Focal points:    



Common elements    



Weapons (Manhattan Project) Instruments (Sputnik, Hubble) Facilities (Superconducting Supercollider) Projects (war on cancer, moon landing, HGP) National undertakings Not just science but also technology Big money Distinct (and tangible) endpoints

Assumptions  

Linear model: discovery, innovation, uptake States know what innovation is good for society

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

8

An Innovative Moment – Buzz Aldrin’s Moon Landing

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

9

Illustrations: 1950-1990  

  

 

Privatization of nuclear power and “atoms for peace” Expansion of National Institutes of Health Establishment of National Science Foundation Apollo Program and NASA Presidential ethics commissions (1970s-) Bayh-Dole Act (1980) Product framing of biotechnology (1984-) 10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

10

Changes in the Landscape  

  

Changing face of S&T: technoscience; “Mode 2”; mission-oriented science; dual use technologies… Disasters and crises of confidence: Bhopal, TMI, Chernobyl, Challenger, BSE, GM crops, 9/11, financial markets, research misconduct, “capital misconduct”… Globalization of “the environment” New “convergent” technologies and their social problems: nanotech, synthetic biology, robotics… From managing risk to managing ignorance and uncertainty 10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

11

Missing Perspectives on Innovation       

Collaborative and reflexive research on hybrid (crossdisciplinary) knowledge Long-term studies of Mode 2 knowledge-making: impacts, learning, and transformations Social science paradigm shifts and “emergence studies” Knowledge-making outside the lab Cross-cultural studies of science and policy Ethnographies of power (“studying up”) Failure and disaster studies

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

12

Alternative visions for scholars 

Instrumental (for policy, for discipline)  



Interpretive  



Give policymakers what they want Use opportunities for field development Explain what is going on Critique existing dominant understandings from other standpoints (S&T critics)

Normative 

Address what is to be done, but not (necessarily) from inside dominant policy framings

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

13

New Frame: Co-Production  

Making the worlds we study (e.g., global knowledge, populations [at risk], “geneticization,” digitization) Focal points  

 



Emergence Controversy Intelligibility and portability (standardization) Cultures and practices of research (ethical assumptions)

Mechanisms    

Identities Institutions Discourses Representations

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

14

Object: Publics 

Who are the publics the research intends to benefit, and are they included in research design?



How do relevant publics assess the need for more knowledge?



What are the attitudes of such publics with respect to knowledge (Luddites, passive consumers, active producers, patronized outsiders)?



When is consultation appropriate, and with/between/among whom?

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

15

Innovating Forms of Life

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

16

Assumptions of Competence Innovator

Imagined Publics

Gandhi

Political competence

Martin Luther King

Civic competence

Muhammad Yunus

Economic competence

Tim Berners-Lee

Reading competence

J.K. Rowling

Imaginative competence

Mark Zuckerberg

Social competence

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

17

Global Asymmetries 

Captive technological imaginations Call centers  Clinical trials 



Liberated social imaginations Khadi movement  Grameen Bank 



Links and translations 

National Institutes of Health vs. Ashoka

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

18

Constitutional Moments  



Formal constitutional amendments are rare in many countries However, informal changes occur and can be constitutional in effect Constitutional moments   



Redefine relations between states and citizens in fundamental ways Change the terms and/or venues of public reasoning and justification Reformulate epistemic rights and responsibilities

Are we at a constitutional moment for ASCTI

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

19

US Case: Stirrings of Openness 1946 Administrative Procedure Act  Historical context 

New Deal struggles and compromises  Courts, Congress, and the Presidency 



Further developments Social movements and participatory engagements in the 1960s  NEPA (1969) and its environmental progeny 

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

20

Rights of the Knowledge-Able Citizen 

Epistemic rights of citizenship in post-1960s United States: 

Right to know • Of exposure to risks • For informed consumption • To level the economic and social playing field

 

  

Right to give informed consent Right to demand reasons Right to participate and offer expertise Right to challenge irrational decisions Right to appeal

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

21

Privatization, Ethics, Engagement 

1980s: a sea change Deregulation  End of bipolar world order  Rise of neo-liberalism and “market fundamentalism” 

Birth of public ethics  Introduction of “public engagement”  Persistence of deficit model 

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

22

Is “public engagement” discourse a new constitutional moment? 

New language and concepts 



New problematizations of the “public” 



Empty signifier, deficit model, constructed interlocutor of the state, partner, “evidence-based”

New forums and processes 



Engagement (not participation), upstream, interactional

Juries, consensus conferences, consultations, referenda

New horizons 

Anticipation, scenarios, futures

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

23

What should we appropriate, and is “public engagement” the way to get it?  

If it restores communication between emotion and intellect, affect and reason, imagination and argument If it abandons procedures that have   



Bureaucratized technical reason Privatized values and emotions Delegated deliberation to experts (e.g., climate change)

If it restores   

Value conflicts to the public sphere Contestation among imaginations of the future Demote science to same level as other modes of democratic imagination

10/20/10

Medellin-ASCTI

24