Arie Rip University of Twente The Fred Jevons Science Policy Lecture Manchester 4 March 2014 A prefatory remark Fred Jevons 1973 book Science Observed Science as a social and intellectual activity was an introduction sketching the landscape for aspiring students in Manchester and ID: 279776
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Fashions in science policy, past and pre..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Fashions in science policy, past and present
Arie Rip (University of Twente)
The Fred Jevons Science Policy Lecture, Manchester, 4 March 2014Slide2
A prefatory remark
Fred Jevons’ 1973 book “Science Observed. Science as a social and intellectual activity” was an introduction, sketching the landscape for aspiring students, in Manchester and elsewhere.
John Maddox, former editor of Nature, reviewed it for
New Scientist
, and queried “Where does Jevons stand?”, especially on the issue of good and bad science.
My paper is about “Science Policy Observed.” I don’t take a strong stand either. Or at least, I analyse and diagnose, before taking a stand.Slide3
My topic: fashions
Passing fads (meant pejoratively)
That what sweeps actors (cf. bandwagon), and shapes their thinking & action – for a time
Can be based on an opportunity that is exploited (cf. goldrush) – and the opportunity may get exhausted
Example: a new scientific discovery/approach,
like high-temperature superconductive materials, polywater, the overall promise of nanotechnology. Or the theory of determinants in 19th century mathematics.Slide4
Research area: mathematical theory of determinants
A: New ideas and new results
B: Textbooks, applications
C: Trivial and repetitive publications
K.O.May, Growth and quality of the mathematical literature,
Isis
59 (1968) 363-371
Growth and maturity of a research area (cf. product-lifecycle)(The graph of cumulative publications is an S-curve.)Slide5
Visibility
Time
Technology
Trigger
Trough of
Disillusionment
Peak of
Inflated Expectations
Plateau of
Productivity
Slope of
Enlightenment
Is a world without hype possible?
Gartner Group: Technology Hype Cycle
Is a world (of science policy) possible without fashions?Slide6
Issue-attention cycle (Downs 1972)
Often reduced to “newsworthiness” that is exploited by media (and now also social media). This “opportunity” becomes exhausted, media and public lose interest, and move to another topic.
But Downs made a broader point, about how problems are recognized, addressed to some extent, and then left in limbo.Slide7
Downs (1972): Five phases
Pre-problem stage (latent, unnoticed, ...)
“Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthousiasm” (about solving it)
“Realising the cost of significant progress”
“Gradual decline of intense public interest”
Post-problem stage (“prolonged limbo”)
Articulation of the issue, negotiations,
investment in action
This leaves “residues”: programs, institutions, networks which persist (Downs, p. 40/41)Slide8
Fashions in science policy
One example is the convergence of priorities in all (late-)industrialized countries (with funding races as for nanotechnology), driven also by no-regret decision making. But that’s
not
my topic.
Science policy practitioners need ideas and approaches that inspire and mobilize, and offer them an opportunity to act wisely, and be seen to act wisely.
Provided by analysts (e.g. Mode 2 of knowledge production), or occurring in practice and given a name (e.g. open innovation)Slide9
Case 1: Big Science
Alvin Weinberg is said to have coined the term in a 1961 article in
Science
(cf. Derek de Solla Price,
Little Science, Big Science
, 1963), but Fred Hoyle may have used it first.
For actors, it captures a transformation of science and
a decision making problem at the same timeA 1987 Task Force of US Congress on the topic was surprised how much big science occurred before the era of Big Science. (cf. also the concern about
Grossbetrieb in (German) science, from late 19th century onward)Slide10
Important features
There is a key word or phrase that captures the underlying diagnosis, and allows it to travel, and be used in many places
The key word/phrase is open ended, and used by different actors for their own purposes.
The diagnosis may not be historically correct, but is still forceful.
An important driver was the post-Sputnik (1957) reflection on what was actually happening in US S&T. “Big Science” became one of the foci. It is now part of the repertoire.Slide11
Case 2: Mode 2 of knowledge production
The Gibbons et al. booklet (1994) created a stir in many places because it offered a strong diagnosis
Hessels and Van Lente (2008) traced some 1000 citations (in Scopus) over the period 1996-2006, still increasing (perhaps slowing down a bit)
Of these, 80% take Mode 2 as a given, just a background to the own topic (a safe reference)
In science policy, reference to Mode 2 was limited (no decision challenge), and has by now almost disappearedSlide12
A timely diagnosis?
Yes, but one of many: cf. post-normal science (Ravetz), Strategic Science (Rip), Triple Helix (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz), post-academic science (Ziman)
Are attempts of analysts to come to terms with ongoing changes (transformations?) by naming them, and drawing out implications.
Analysts vying for attention ...Slide13
Case 3: Grand Challenges
Current buzzword in the European Union (since the Lund Declaration, 2009); there is a core list of about six Grand Challenges (with some variations)
Similar policy talk and action elsewhere, e.g. in the Obama Administration
Earlier systematic use by the UK Research Councils, after the 2007 Government Spending Review: to specify their cross-cutting themes like “Energy” and “Ageing: Life-long health and well-being” (which were a way to show they were doing important things with their money)Slide14
Addressing Grand Challenges
How to actually address such Grand Challenges, with many actors involved and open-ended goals?
Plus another Challenge: creating adequate institutions and arrangements. (Ex. of charitable foundations)
One driver: need for new opportunities for science & technology policy making, now that economic valorisation is more or less in place
The fashionable term will pass, but there will be residuesSlide15
Case 4: Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI)
Fashionable discourse with the European Commission; has become an acronym
Will be “pervasive” in FP8 (Horizon 2020)
One root is the call for “responsible development” of nanotechnology
RRI is taken up by further actors, in particular funding agencies and research consortia and institutes – for their own reasons
(may be impression management, but that can have implications)Slide16
Thanks to Erik Fisher, STIR project, for drawing my attention to this poster.Slide17
Responsible innovation, at different levels
Macro-level: societal discourse
policy
Ideas about future world; division of moral labour
EU Code of Conduct for Responsible NanoST Research
Meso-level:
funding agencies
branch organzations consortia
[New roles/repertoires]
Dutch MVI;
extended impact statementscode of conduct etcELSA as integral part; Constructive Techn. Ass’tMicro-level:scientists (in the lab)Industrialists/firms“relevance”, ‘fictive script’Corp. Social Resp., transparencySlide18
Multi-level processes
This is ongoing, but certain paths become visible: in responsible development of nanotechnology, and by extrapolation, in RRI more broadly (e.g. the neo-liberal principle “do no harm”)
Emphasis on newly emerging technologies!
New roles, new routines emerge – will persist after the fashion has run its course
One driver: to extend ‘social licence to operate’ because of credibility pressures in/of societySlide19
A change in handling new technologies?
Not just nanotech.
Precursors: in Human Genome Project (ELSI component), but also chemical industry’s Responsible Care Program. And now consideration of synthetic biology, geo-engineering.
Will this continue? And if so, what form will it take? At the moment, we see reductions to create some tractability:
Focus on upstream (to assure acceptance!?)
Focus on risk issues (which appear to be more tractable than societal and ethical issues)
Add: evolving narratives of praise and blameSlide20
By way of conclusion
Big Science and Mode 2 started with a diagnosis of ongoing transformation. GC and RRI aim for
desirable
transformation. Itself a secular change (of science policy)?
Fashions are there for a reason, and have effects (non-linear, cf. multi-level processes)
STI policy and governance arrangements as the accumulated residues of fashions?
There’s
more to STI policy. But it does imply that every now and then one should have a critical look at what has accumulated.Slide21Slide22
‘Responsibility’ language
Also used to attribute praise and blame, cf. Ravetz’s aphorism:
“Scientists take credit for penicillin, but Society takes the blame for the Bomb”
And there is
prospective
responsibility, a duty to do certain things (and avoid others)
Responsibility for progress, even if the powerful knowledge can also be misused
So: various strands that can be taken up in RRISlide23
Consider RRI as an attempt at social innovation
New and uncertain, distributed ...
Requires institutional changes, and sub-cultural changes. How to “push” this?
Soft command and control (EU/Member states stipulating codes of conduct for RI)
But also a business proposition: to extend ‘social licence to operate’ because of credibility pressures in/of societySlide24
Increasing interactions between science and society
1870
1945
1970
1985
2000
By now, strongly
institutionalized
(outer ring is still
being articulated)
I’ve used this mapping of institutions as a diagnostic tool, e.g. for South AfricaSlide25
Patient associations
influence research agendas and engage in research themselves, undermining the exclusive rights of scientists
Technology Assessment
, Ethical, Legal & Social Aspects surround ongoing science and technology (Human Genome Project initiated this)
Outreach,
public engagement
– feedback into research agendas? (ex. interactive TA of GM vines)
Also
consultancies (and NGOs)
bridging science and the economy, science and the community
Authority over science (knowledge production) is also claimed by non-scientists (from USA Congressmen to patients and indigenous people); counter-authority is not the answer. Re-contextualization of science Increasing interactions between science and society
1870
1945
1970
1985
2000