Science and Technology and the Society

A recent editorial in the IPTS Report from June 2000 discusses the role of science and technology in our society. It is reprinted below. This issue of the report includes a number articles on this topic. Those interested in these can read / download from the IPTS website.

Science and Technology (S/T) - and more generally technical progress - modulates the pace and even the direction of change in our societies. Governance, on the other hand, is all about decision-making with a view to managing this change, making it a friend, not a foe, in order to safeguard and promote people’s wellbeing. Simply put "science and governance" refers to the mechanisms, and the challenge of devising them, so as to allow science and the processes of decision-making in society to work together in ways that are effective, credible, accountable and transparent.   

The articles in this special issue reflect the authors' presentations at the workshop organized by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Brussels on 29-30 March, on the topic of science and governance. One of the ideas to emerge from the workshop was that a common system of S&T reference is indispensable for addressing the science and governance challenge. Such a system would be a commonly built, owned and used ensemble of organizations or actors linked together by a set of relations and procedures to provide the expertise and scientific support needed for the policy-making process.   

Preparing the ground for such a scientific reference system involves more than mere provision of advice; the system should engender trust and a sense of shared responsibility through the development of networks, and it should be firmly anchored institutionally. It should also provide a scientific component to President Prodi's initiative on overall governance. The Commission's JRC can play a central, catalytic role in this process of building a system for scientific reference (note that these issues will be further explored in a conference the IPTS is due to hold in the autumn).   

The challenges to be tackled by such a system include: the need to be as inclusive as possible when considering relevant information/ analyses, without diluting the process to the point of being ineffective; preserving its independence and scientific character, but also promoting review, flexibility and avoiding all pretence of omni-science. It must deal not only with what we know but also with what we do not know, and even more vexingly, with what we do not know that we do not know. It should start by exploring who is doing what in this field in the systems existing in different parts of the world, and understand key - 'constitutional' as it were - underlying differences, such as different legal systems. It should entail a better relationship with the public and the media. It should ultimately combine in a careful balance the qualities of translator of relevant knowledge to policymakers and stakeholders, communicator of the common denominator of agreement across views and distiller/assessor of areas of disagreement.   

The importance of a successful wedding of science and governance is manifold. On the one hand S/T is substantially responsible for driving change. Moreover, S/T is a pivotal input to the policy-making process: helping clarify the terms of the debate, the stakes, the repercussions of alternatives considered. It can help clear away unfounded assertions and reveal opponentsí demonizations for what they are, and so allow dialogue and debate to examine the foundations on which policy alternatives rest. By informing an intelligent debate and the eventual policy choices, S/T helps both governance and itself. Governance and the policy choices made are legitimated in an S/T-informed process so as to become more than the arbitrary selection resulting from power struggles, untamed by facts and cool-headed analysis. On the other hand, S/T escapes both the splendid isolation of the proverbial academic ivory tower, and the crippling image of a hired gun offering its services (and tailoring its verdict) to the highest bidder.   

This has been an important issue for some time, and is becoming increasingly so, fed by the in-creasingly central role scientific/ technological considerations play in decision-making, as well as by a wave of popular mistrust in science and/or the means of delivering scientific input to policy. For instance in light of the relaunching of trade negotiations, and of the inevitable tensions in assigning primacy to obligations stemming from WTO versus thematic agreements such as the recently signed biosafety protocol, it would seem to be an opportune moment to turn the spotlight on these issues and their implications.   

The goal then in this context is to integrate sound science and sound governance, and to enhance their interface in a way that is accountable, transparent, thorough, impartial and credible, and which will help focus the policy debate on the merits of the proposed actions. Such integration will provide reference quality information and analyses, presenting in a distilled, user-friendly fashion what we know, what we do not know, and the extent of the uncertainties and risks involved in different alternatives.   

Without such an integration, debate can come to resemble a dialogue of the deaf, with prejudices and preconceptions determining positions, and where granting a point to the other side is akin to a religious conversion. Credibility and impartiality are crucial here: the sight of each side of the argument parading its own 'literati' (or perhaps 'digerati' in our digital age) from forum to forum is the fastest route to making audiences cynical and unwilling to entertain serious debate.  

If strengthening this integration of science and governance is necessary within one country, it becomes even more so when the international dimension of governance is concerned. Across borders there is no unique enforcer, no single government with a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Hence when sovereign entities have to choose a course of action, suasion and S/T-informed debate become even more important.   

The recent intra-EU disputes over the importation of British beef, and the differing verdicts / recommendations of experts on different sides are a recent reminder that we are not immune to such problems within the EU. That case highlighted the importance of a permanent platform at an EU level commanding the trust of all parties (rather than an ad-hoc committee), able to provide reference quality information and drawing on, in an ongoing way, all the expertise accumulated at member-state level.  

At an even more global level, the absence of an EU-level body acting as an interlocutor and coordinator meant missing an opportunity to nip in the bud what later became thorny EU-US trade problems, related to S/T (e.g. approval of genetically modified food products in the US put through completely independently of European attitudes, and future obstacles to their commercialization in Europe).   

Both in instances of intra-EU issues in which effective governance has to rely on S/T reference quality information, untainted by even the suspicion/semblance of possible partiality, as well as in cases of global issues involving the EU with non-EU states, an EU-level system is needed to provide the means to EU-wide reference quality information.   

Such a system could be structured on networks of centres of excellence, catalysed by the Commission, providing a common knowledge-base for S&T reference, and an interlocutor between actors and policy-makers. This would be a crucial step towards tackling the 'science and governance' challenge. Moreover it should be seen in the context of, and will be enabled by, Commissioner Busquin’s European Research Area initiative, and indeed can be a showcase of what this initiative can deliver, when the joining of forces in research that it enunciates takes hold.   

To put it in a nutshell, the issue and relevance paragraphs applicable to this entire special issue would be as follows:

Issue: S/T is substantially responsible for driving change; it is a pivotal input to the policy-making process, and can help clarify the terms of the debate, the stakes, and the repercussions of the alternatives considered. The goal in this context is to integrate sound science and sound governance; to enhance the interface of science and governance in a way that is accountable, transparent, rigorous, impartial and credible; and in such a way as to help focus the policy debate on the merits of proposed actions. Such integration will provide reference quality information and analyses, presenting in a distilled, user-friendly fashion what we know, what we do not know, and the extent of the uncertainties and risks involved in different courses of action.

Relevance: The increasing weight of, and need for corresponding input on, scientific and technological considerations for decision-making, and the need to achieve this in/by 'reference quality', consensus-galvanizing ways/procedures that enjoy the full confidence of all concerned, makes indispensable the creation of an institutionally anchored, common scientific and technological reference system for Europe. Commissioner Busquin’s European Research Area initiative provides the crucial enabling framework for addressing this inevitable challenge, through such a common reference system.

Contact

Dimitris Kyriakou, IPTS

e-mail: Dimitris.Kyriakou@jrc.es