seminar given at National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, 29 th August 2012 Andy Stirling SPRU & STEPS Centre Ambiguous Evidence: implications of uncertainty for science policy
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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?
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’