‘Scientists sometimes tell politicians what the world should be like and how we should make it happen. That does not work.’

“It is essential that politicians are actively involved in technology assessment,” says Ulla Burchardt, who was a member of the German Bundestag until last year, and chair of the parliamentary committee for Education, Science and Technology-Assessment (Technikfolgen-Abschatzung) for many years. “But we have to keep in mind that science and politics are two different things. That distinction makes TA important.”

Ulla Burchardt spent more than twenty years as a member of the Social Democratic Party SPD in the Bundestag. Since her voluntary resignation, she works as a consultant in the areas of strategy development and innovation. She is also a lecturer at the Technical University of Dortmund, and at the Business School Berlin/Potsdam. As a member of the Bundestag she got involved in the TAB, the Office of Technology Assessment at the Bundestag, after its pilot stage in 1993.

‘The art of politics is that you need to take into account those who are affected, those who benefit from your solution and how you can make sure that the majority of people are content with it.’

 

The TAB is not an institute of the Bundestag but ‘at’ the Bundestag. Burchardt: “The TAB is separate from the bureaucracy. Every five years we select – in competition – a research institute to operate the TAB. The director of the selected institute is also the director of the TAB. Since its beginning, the TAB has been run by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and from 2013, in conjunction with three other institutes that are specialized in environmental research, future studies and innovation and technology. “KIT has done it for many years and they have done it very well”, notes Burchardt, “but we thought the TAB needed to broaden its scope. Not purely TA but also horizon scanning and innovation.”

Too few friends: the OTA lesson

The mother of all TA institutes – the American Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) – inspired the German TAB. “The OTA was founded in 1972 in a period when members of the American Congress realised that their government put a lot of money into science and technology, the results of which had major implications for society, while at the same time Congress was almost entirely dependent on that same government for information. Quite soon after the OTA started, it dawned upon members of the Bundestag that they were in more or less the same situation.”

The debate in Germany however took quite some time. Burchardt: “Some scientists and people from industry feared that technology assessment would increase fears among the public about new technological developments. Others feared that parliament was trying to gain control and take over science. But at the end of the eighties, the German parliament was convinced that it needed to seek assistance from an independent agency to take sound, fact-based political decisions.”

By that time the OTA had almost disappeared from the TA stage. “Not because they had too many enemies”, says Burchardt, “but because they had too few friends. Nobody in Congress felt responsible for TA, so the OTA got less and less budget and was slowly starved. We did not want to make the same mistake in Germany so we decided that the status, operation and financing of the TAB was stipulated in the regulations of the Bundestag; that its work program is decided upon by parliament and that TA studies are done in close cooperation between the TA spokespersons of parliamentary groups and the scientists who work for the TAB.”

Consensus is needed

Proposals for TA-topics come from the standing committees of the Bundestag. The spokespersons for TA in parliament – one for each party represented – together with the TAB-director, evaluate the political and scientific relevance of the suggested topics and the practicability of the study. Burchardt: “An important requirement is that the TA spokespersons fully agree on the topics that go into the work program. Consensus is needed to prevent the report itself becoming the subject of political controversy. It should not be that one party rejects the report because it has too much of the colour of another party, or vice versa. If there is no agreement, the topic won’t make it into the work program.”

Avoiding political controversy also means that big issues, for example the German phase-out of nuclear power (Ausstieg), cannot be the subjects of a TA study. Burchardt: “Apart from the fact that the subject itself is quite large for a TA-study, the Ausstieg is also the subject of a heated debate. The subject is too politicized; every fact has got a political meaning. We cannot roll back to the time when you still would be able to get agreement on the facts.”

When performing a TA-study, researchers operate independently from politics. However there is regular consultation with the TA spokespersons of the parliament, though – according to Burchardt – purely on practical matters. “The spokespersons sometimes want some more explanation or the researchers suggest splitting a too-large research project into smaller ones. As far as I can remember it happened only once that a report was sent back because of its content, but that was because the researcher based the report on ten-year-old data and one interview with a stakeholder.”

Despite these regular consultations, science and politics are strictly separated in the German TA model. Burchardt: “You often see that scientists in an advisory role position themselves as political consultants. They tell us politicians what the world should be like and how we should make this happen. That does not work. Firstly, TA-studies are about very specific, concrete questions that are relevant for political decision-making, for instance about the possible effect of nano-particles on the health of workers. Secondly, we expect from researchers that they give us an overview of the technical developments; the opportunities and risks and the options for decision-making. We don’t want them to tell us what to do, but we do want them to tell us what we can do. Decisions have to do with values, and they belong in the political arena. What we want from scientists are facts with their margins of uncertainty, so that we can base our decisions on knowledge and not just on gut feelings.”

Parliamentary guinea pigs

Burchardt is pretty satisfied with what she calls the ‘institutional design’ of the TAB in the German Bundestag. “We have based it on a number of principles and that seems to work well,” she says. Those principles are: scientific independence; political neutrality; exclusivity, meaning that the TAB only works for the Bundestag; inclusiveness, which means that researchers and parliamentarians work together; and absolute transparency of processes and results. And the reporting has to be accessible, says Burchardt.“Researchers are required to present their results in such a way that every citizen can understand them. You could say that  parliamentarians serve as guinea pigs; if they understand it, anyone can understand it.”

The institutional design seems very agreeable, but what about the TA reports? Do they play a role in decision-making? “Formally speaking, a TA report, once it has been accepted, is an official document of the Bundestag, so not just an opinion of some scientists. Sometimes nothing happens with it, but far more often TA reports are used in parliamentary debates as a factual knowledge base. A recent example is the debate on Big Data, during which politicians referred to a TA-report on the legal and social consequences of data-mining.”

TA studies also provide new perspectives. As an example, Burchardt mentions a study on the possible health effects of radiation from cell phone masts. TA researchers analyzed all the scientific publications on the subject and classified them according to the measure of scientific reliability. One of the striking findings was that telephone companies – parties with a big stake in the matter – commissioned most of the studies. Burchardt: “That does not make the results scientifically better or worse, but you do run against a problem of credibility. Based on the TA-study, we called for more funding for independent research. In addition, we have asked for regulations to limit the radiation from cell phone towers as much as possible.”

The cell phone example shows that socially controversial topics can almost never be solved with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A theme like climate change, for example, has many more layers and perspectives than simply the classic ‘believer’ or ‘denier’. The same applies to nuclear power, genetic modification and the extraction of shale gas. Burchardt: “It is these layers and different angles that make it possible for politicians to seek solutions. There is no one big solution for climate change but you still can tackle the issue by trying to find practical solutions on a smaller scale, like how to reduce household energy consumption. TA is needed to ask the right questions and to map possible solutions.”

“It only works,” she continues, “when scientists realize that knowledge and facts are not enough for decision-making. You could say ‘this is how it should be done’, but you will have to find a majority for your solution. After all, we do not live in Plato’s Republic where a ruling class of wise men control the state, but in a democracy where everyone has a vote. The art of politics is that you need to take into account those who are affected, those who benefit from your solution and how you can make sure that the majority of people are content with it. On the other hand, politicians will have to accept that scientific evidence might affect their views. It is this distinction between a scientific approach and the handiwork of politicians that makes TA indispensable.”

Ulla Burchardt (1954) studied pedagogy, social sciences and psychology and worked in adult education before being elected as a member of parliament for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in 1990. She was chair of the Parliamentary Committee for Education, Science and Technology Assessment for many years. After stepping down in 2013, she now provides consultancy on strategy and innovation and lectures at the Technical University of Dortmund and the Business School Berlin/Potsdam.

Text: Joost van Kasteren
Photos courtesy of Ulla Burchardt

‘Thinking 20-25 years ahead is almost beyond the imagination of decision-makers.’

“There are even stronger needs for strategic thinking in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries than in the advanced ones, given their specific challenges”, claims Attila Havas from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. “In particular, their fundamental political and socio-economic transition processes, as well as major changes in their external environment. Yet, long-term thinking is discredited across the region for historical reasons. Although the CEE countries would clearly benefit from conducting foresight programmes, policy-makers do not rely on modern decision-preparatory tools to a sufficient extent.”

Obstacles to foresight

There are various obstacles. “To start with a very simple one, in several countries the history of the current legal entity goes back just over twenty years. Therefore a foresight project with a time horizon of 20-25 years sounds shocking.” Although CEE countries are faced with a compelling need for fundamental changes in their health care, education, and pension systems, among others, decision-makers tend to focus on fire-fighting rather than thinking about long-term issues in a participatory way.

‘Because of the historical legacy, the mind set of people is not geared towards future-oriented thinking and consensual decision-making.’

In other words, short and long-term issues are competing for problem-solving intellectual resources, the attention of politicians and policy-makers who decide on the allocation of funds, and the attention of opinion-leaders who can set the agenda. These intellectual and financial resources are always limited, thus choices have to be made. A well-designed foresight process can help identify priorities, in terms of striking a balance between short- and long-term issues. It could also raise the profile of science, technology and innovation (STI) on the political agenda. CEE politicians tend to look at STI as a burden on the budget, and not as a source of solutions. When public expenditures need to be cut, the first victim would be the budget for STI, education and culture. Changing that attitude would be crucial.

Changing the historical mindset

In some European democracies, the role of government is shifting from being a central steering entity to that of a moderator of collective decision-making processes with the conviction that stakeholders need to be involved for government policies to be more effective. However, in CEE countries there seems to be distrust towards decentralised decision-making.

“It is probably due to the history we shared for centuries where consensus was not the main method of making decisions”, suggests Havas. “CEE history is laden with severe conflicts, including wars and civil wars and empires occupied large parts of our region for long times. Simply because of this historical legacy, the mindset of people is not geared towards future-oriented thinking and consensual decision-making.”

Foresight is always a learning process for those involved. It is not only the ‘products’ – i.e. the different documents, final reports, and policy recommendations – that are important but also the ‘process’ itself, namely disseminating a new, participatory, transparent, future-oriented decision-making culture; intensified networking, co-operation and institution-building activities. In other words, a foresight programme can contribute to the strengthening of the national system of innovation in two ways: through reports, recommendations as well as via facilitating the communication and co-operation among various professional communities.

The power of informal communication

CEE policy-makers should be inspired to rely more on modern decision preparatory tools and a mix of methods would be needed to foster understanding the relevance of these tools. Tailored workshops to stimulate interactive learning would be particularly effective (not the one-way, codified knowledge flow of traditional training seminars). Writing lengthy and elaborate reports will not be as successful as direct, face-to-face communication between policy-makers. Networking, personal communication, the transfer of tacit knowledge is crucial, even if it is not measured directly. “I think the close links among the members of the European foresight, TA, and evaluation community, along with the collegial atmosphere, is really a strength. I have only met colleagues who were ready to help, share their experience, and reflect critically as well.”

Havas has recently been involved with the preparation of the smart specialisation strategies for 2014-2020. (Smart specialisation is a new policy concept designed to promote the efficient and effective use of the EU Structural Funds.) Foresight methodologies have not yet been used in Hungary to that end. “I can recall a few cases when foresight is used to prepare the new planning documents. One is Lithuania. They have just completed a national foresight programme on their research and higher education system and are using the results to prepare the smart specialisation strategy for 2014-2020. Portugal is also planning a foresight-type programme to underpin their smart specialisation strategy.”

‘A well-designed foresight process can help identify priorities, in terms of striking a balance between short- and long-term issues.’

About future recommendations for the region Attila Havas is very clear: There should always be a very strong national commitment. It is important to engage in international co-operation, but it is always crucial to have commitment from domestic stakeholders. “If at some point there was a pressure on the EU to conduct or fund TA activities in this or that country, I don’t think that would be a good idea. Co-financing might be helpful, especially in terms of covering the costs of foreign experts, but there should always be a strong domestic commitment, in terms of the financial and human resources devoted to TA. Without that there is no hope that these tools might become part of the decision-making process in this region.”

Attila Havas is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Economics, Centre for Regional and Economic Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and regional editor of International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. His academic interests are in evolutionary economics of innovation, systems of innovation, innovation policy, and technology foresight. In 1997-2001 he was Programme Director of TEP, the Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme, the first programme of its kind in Central and Eastern Europe.

Text: Katalin Fodor

Photos courtesy of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

 

‘It’s people at the forefront of the struggle for freedom who bring about change, and that struggle is increasingly being played out online.’

In January 2011, Egyptian protesters found themselves deprived of digital communication as western companies switched off systems in compliance with the orders of the Mubarak government. Chinese bloggers, on the other hand, managed to outwit massive state censorship and found Google on their side, at least, that is, after a company policy change in 2010. In Syria, the Assad regime is capable of bombing civilian targets but unable to clamp down entirely on the opposition forces’ livestreaming the atrocities. The National Security Agency of the US government, which routinely analyses the online activities of all of us, would probably have made a better job of that.

There can be no doubt that a new frontline has opened between governments that don’t trust their citizens and citizens who don’t trust their governments. The battle is an old one, of course, but the crucial part played in it by digital technology is quite recent. “In many countries, it’s people at the forefront of the struggle for freedom who bring about change, and that struggle is increasingly being played out online”, says Liberal MEP Marietje Schaake, author of the Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy, a report adopted by the European Parliament last year.

A lot has been made of how the internet and mobile telephones empower people, and examples are easy to find. But as Schaake’s report points out, governments and terrorists are equally keen to use these technologies. With all computers connected to one searchable network and all telephone data interceptable, there’s nowhere left to hide for dissidents. It’s true that not all repressive regimes are currently as tech-savvy and well equipped as China and Iran, but it will not be long before others catch up.

‘Technology has developed so fast that most politicians, both in Europe and elsewhere, just haven’t kept up’

Schaake’s outlook, however, is pragmatic: “I don’t think repressive governments can create watertight systems to control their citizens. It’s more of a cat-andmouse game. People keep finding ingenious ways to get digital information out of their country and to access information. Actually, several technological innovations have started with individuals under pressure, e.g. in Tibet, where people learned how to circumvent cyber attacks from China. In China, people use metaphors and puns to get their message across on social media. Even though the censorship apparatus employs at least
30,000 people and is continuously updating the list of politically sensitive terms, they can’t stop online discussions of government blunders and other political issues. So I think that the jury is still out, and that’s why this is the moment to develop smart policies in defence of digital freedom. After all, the EU claims to be not a mere economic community, but one of values too, and its support for global freedom of expression reflects that. Unfortunately, this support is fragmented across several policy areas and, what’s worse, it has a blind spot for digital media. Technology has developed so fast that most politicians, both in Europe and elsewhere, just haven’t kept up. I can only hope the American Congress would not have given the NSA such a wide mandate if they’d understood the actual implications.”

Leading by example
So what should the EU do to catch up with the times in its defence of freedom of expression? If governments and citizens are indeed playing a cat-and-mouse game, how can it empower the mice rather than the cats? “In the report, I’ve set out to make digital freedoms a common theme in a whole range of foreign and security policies”, Schaake says. “Trade policy is one. There should be a framework for restricting the export of what I term ‘digital weapons’. Some technologies have quite obviously been developed and are even being marketed for purposes that are blatant violations of human rights. Take mass surveillance systems, for example. I don’t think there can ever be any justification for those, in any country. Mass surveillance is always a disproportionate measure to take. So you definitely don’t want to export such technologies to countries like Syria – but that’s exactly what some European companies have been doing. Some other technologies are okay for countries with a firm rule of law. For instance, it can be legitimate for the police to practice lawful interception – although even within the EU, excesses occur. But you don’t want to export that sort of technology to countries where the law carries little weight, so that people’s fundamental rights go unprotected.”

The EU hasn’t got a monopoly on digital monitoring, tracking and tracing, surveillance and censoring technologies. So why bother to restrict exports if nasty regimes can go shopping elsewhere? “Of course, it would be utopian to think we can stop digital weapon systems being developed and traded altogether. But in politics, you have to practice what you preach, even when it costs money. I’m a strong believer in leading by example. It’s the best way to convince other countries to do likewise and the next step may be to suggest an international convention. You always have to start somewhere: the ban on cluster munitions wouldn’t have happened if some countries hadn’t taken a first step, regardless of economic interests. In many cases, the right thing to do is also economically smart. Apart from hurting human rights, China’s censorship and surveillance also make it harder for western companies to operate in line with their own corporate policies..”

What else can Europe do? “We’re the world’s largest development aid donor. We can use this position to fight corruption and to further transparency. Technology can empower people, and that’s what we should look for. When we insist that governments publish their budgets online, it becomes easier for journalists and activists to scrutinise government spending and more difficult for officials to embezzle large sums of money. Technology can also help prevent vote rigging. When I was an election observer in Nigeria, I was impressed by Project Swift Count whereby a huge number of local citizens witnessed the counting process and sent text messages with their polling stations’ results to a central office. The aggregated figures were then compared to the official results. The EU could facilitate systems like this elsewhere.

The EU Neighbourhood Policy is another important area. We’re the main trading partner of most neighbouring countries, which potentially gives us strong leverage. A number of these countries are also candidate member states and will therefore have to meet the Copenhagen criteria [the rules that determine whether a country is eligible to join the EU, for example, democratic stability]. I’m happy to say that in response to a question I asked the Commission, digital freedoms have been included in these criteria.

Security policy too could be a tool to guarantee digital freedom. But what actually happens, both in Europe and America, is that our freedom gets curtailed under the guise of cyber security or the war on terror. Politicians tend to perceive security and liberty as a trade-off, a zero-sum game. It’s not! If you want to defend your freedoms against an outside threat, eroding them from within is an extremely contradictory and counterproductive thing to do.”

Beyond the engineering approach
For those who still feel that the internet is more suited for repression than democratisation, Schaake has a few more suggestions designed to shift the balance. “In Egypt, western companies would have been in a stronger position in resisting the regime’s instructions to switch off the internet if the EU had had a clear policy in place. We should state unambiguously that European companies are not allowed to do such a thing and give them political support when it comes to the crunch. This incident was a first, and we should draw lessons from it. We should not underestimate the influence companies have on the internet infrastructure.”

‘Some technologies have quite obviously been developed and are even being marketed for purposes that are blatant violations of human rights’

Companies should also be encouraged to think harder about the effects their innovations may have on society. “An engineering approach alone is too narrow; technology developers should be aware of their social responsibility. It’s shocking to see what some very clever technologies end up doing in countries like Bahrain, Azerbaijan and all the others we’ve talked about. Do you remember how Apple wanted to introduce a system that would enable cinemas to automatically switch off the camera function in telephones? I can see why Hollywood would want that, but just imagine
how many governments would be delighted to have such systems in places where the police crack down on protesters, for instance. We can’t stop that technology developing, but we can decide that certain applications should not be used. Digital face recognition is a good example: after an outcry against it, Facebook decided to turn it off. It would have been better if they’d thought before they acted.”

The paternalistic temptation
Obviously, there’s no excuse for repression, but couldthere conceivably be a place for benign paternalism when it comes to internet access? After all, the web opens the floodgates to an incredible amount of mostly western information and values, ranging from some of the noblest to much of the lowest. In a society unaccustomed to such exposure, this may well be a bit overwhelming and even destabilising– much like the printing press in 15th century Europe. But Schaake won’t have it: “It’s the sort of discourse governments like to use when they want to limit freedom. Russia, for instance, justifies deep package inspection under the guise of defending intellectual property rights and protecting minors against pornography. My position is: the freer the internet, the better.”

Marietje Schaake has been a Member of the European Parliament for the Dutch liberal party D66 (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) since the elections of 2009. She studied Sociology, American Studies and New Media in Amsterdam. Her main areas of interest include internet freedom and other human rights, as well as international trade. In 2011, the Wall Street Journal called her ‘Europe’s most wired politician’. Twitter @marietjeschaake

Text: Gaston Dorren
Photos courtesy of Bram Belloni

‘I could draw a definition of you based on a million different statistical indicators, and I still wouldn't be able to draw a reliable portrait’

“We have elected individual freedom as our main mission at the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation,” explains Portuguese sociologist António Barreto, Chairman of the board of directors of the Lisbon-based private philanthropic foundation. For Barreto, that means free access to knowledge, like the certified statistics provided through his PORTADA database: “We believe that  knowledge is a way for individual freedom and social development. But numbers are not enough. Critical thinking also plays an important role”.

PORDATA systematizes free-access certified Portuguese statistical information based on more than 20 reliable sources, such as the National Institute of Statistics (INE), going back over more than 50 years. There are several different databases in the project. One for Portugal, another for Europe (meaning the 27 EU countries based on similar indicators), and a third one which assembles social, economical and demographic indicators related to all cities in Portugal, with cartographic search engines. A new database, with economical indicators on Portugal, is about to be launched. According to Barreto, “This is something completely new, that did not exist at all until now. It has only become possible because of changes in the processes and terminology over the last 40 years. We are working with a team of very experienced consultants and we expect to make it available online very soon. Plus, we are also working on another database project that will gather worldwide information. That is to say, global data on 170 different countries, although we are facing difficulties concerning countries like Angola, where they still haven’t started to gather their national statistics information. Also, we sometimes face problems related to quantity and ideological criteria when dealing with human rights”.

‘I personally feel quite tired of people who only consider numbers when studying a country, or a culture, or a specific people’

Barreto takes an original approach when it comes to what determining what information is significant. “There is an indicator which I particularly like called ‘freedom to walk in the streets by night’. There are less than 40 countries where you can actually gather that kind of information concerning public security. There are still big differences between the countries in the world, making it impossible to build a universal database that can actually work for every indicator. Still, it is worth starting with what we have and might have in the near future”. This includes gathering and comparing public opinion information on diverse subjects in different EU countries, from racism to gender issues: “ It helps us understand how confidence in democratic institutions is developing in each country”, according to Barreto.

But isn’t there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to that kind of opinion analysis? “I agree, but I also think we shouldn't only work on pure statistics. I personally feel quite tired of people who only consider numbers when studying a country, or a culture, or a specific people. Statistics are not enough. I could draw a definition of you based on a million different statistical indicators, and I still wouldn't be able to draw a reliable portrait of you. Humanity is complex which is why I think we should consider more subjective indicators, such as opinion, when studying countries.”

In order to work with ideas as well as numbers, Barreto’s organisation decided to become ‘editors’. In order to reach people, knowledge access needed to be free or low-cost. Some 3,000 people in Portugal access PORDATA daily. “We don't really know who uses it”, says Barreto, “but we do know how people use it. Whatever concerns family, children, marriage, divorce, seems to interest the Portuguese very much”. Social issues – housing, public medical care, unemployment, etc – are also important. “We know schools are using PORDATA a lot, together with public services (state employees) and some countries such as France,  Spain and the UK use it a lot. The average number of visitors is growing every day”. The Foundation recently hosted a conference in 2012 on Portugal in 2030 which attracted 1,500 participants.

Knowledge for Free

But decreasing consumption is on the economic agenda of many European countries, so how will the Foundation deal with that? Barreto talks about China: “We know that we cannot continue with the same old energy policies at a time when China is at its best (meaning worse) concerning energy. China now wants in the next 100 years to do what the western world has been doing for the last 200…China bought a great deal of the American national debt, and is now buying European national debt, which is, as you know, a way of buying political power. But yes, we might get caught ourselves in the middle of that decreasing consumption process in Europe and that is something we have to accept as a part of the reality we are working on. Concerning environmental issues, PORDATA has a specific database with some Portuguese indicators. We also published a book on global climate changes. Still, there is work to be done on those important issues. Portuguese people have been very poor for a long time, and I think there is a clear link between that circumstance and some indifference towards environmental issues”.

‘Mentality is something hard to evolve – it is the last thing to change in any human society’

Every day, people can pick up a free newspaper at a subway station that contains information from PORDATA. Does free access to knowledge make a difference to how citizens view their society?

Barreto is cautious, but hopeful: “I am quite sceptical about the visible consequences of our actions. What we do concerns values and behaviour, and as far as I know, changing mindsets is harder to evolve. Politicians try to address this in their political speeches but promising a change is absurd. You can easily change infrastructures such as roads, and you can also turn new technology into something that changes people's habits easily, because money can buy that. But changing mindsets is something different, because you are dealing with values, knowledge, thought, and for that you need several generations I think. Material society changes fast, but what we do at the Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos deals with slower issues. I am sceptical but also positive because I know we are working for future generations.”

António Barreto (born Oporto 1942) has been Chairman of the Board of Directors of Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos (FFMS) since 2005. He lived in Switzerland as a political exile from 1963 to 1974, studied Sociology at Geneva University and returned to Portugal after the Carnation Revolution. As a Member of Parliament for the Socialist Party, he held positions as Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, Minister for Trade and Tourism, and Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He was awarded the Montaigne Prize in 2004 by the International Council of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation (Germany) for his achievements in sociology research in Portugal. He has published several books on Portuguese social history, was co-author of the Dictionary of Portuguese History 1925/1974 (1999) and author of the television documentary Portugal, um retrato social (Portugal, a social portrait, 2007). He is also a well known photographer.

Text: Sarah Adamopoulos.

Photos courtesy of António Barreto.

"An acceptance of diversity and different abilities is the only answer. Without it, human enhancement will always be attractive and we’ll never get to a point where we can say no."

Chances are someone close to you has had a hip replaced. This is restorative technology at its best, giving a new lease of good quality life to an otherwise healthy body. But what if the replacement joint is fitted out with sensors plugged into the nervous system, enabling its new owner to walk faster and more steadily than they have done in years? Even if they are unlikely to outrun an athlete (though the ‘cheetah’ prosthetic legs worn by the South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius are an instructive example of such a therapeutic’ device with enhancement potential), this (fictitious) intervention undeniably goes beyond simply restoration. What we’re looking at here is human enhancement.

And it’s not just hips

Dr Gregor Wolbring believes that many a technology designed to make up for lost faculties may eventually move beyond what he calls the ‘species–typical level’. As Associate Professor at the Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies (CRDS) program in Calgary, one of the first such programs to be established in North America in 1979, he studies the social implications and governance of ableism, health ethics, and disability. As for those enhancements – sharper senses, stronger muscles, a consistently happier mood or entirely new brainpower, it’s not just about the technology, according to Wolbring: “I myself use a wheelchair so why should I have a problem with someone else using tools? If we tell people without legs that they should have legs, why should they stop at the species–typical level when technology can take them beyond that?” But should they be obliged to use that technology, it becomes a whole different story.

Transhumanist agenda

According to Wolbring, the risk looms large. “It is the transhumanist agenda”, he states. “Transhumanists like John Harris and Julian Savulescu are pushing for these things to become compulsory. The backdoor, so to speak, for the initial acceptance of enhancement, is always therapeutic enhancement; what they call restoration. That’s hard to fight.” “Of course, I could say, ‘We shouldn’t do brain–machine interfaces’. But then someone will roll on to the stage a person with locked-in syndrome, and ask me, “So, you really don’t want that technology developed?” Obviously, it would be a PR disaster to say no. Besides, I do not want to deny useful therapeutics to people who need them.” Is a high–tech device that releases people from their locked–in syndrome really bad news for the rest of us? “It isn’t”, Wolbring agrees. “As long as a technology is invasive, it will remain a health thing and the social impact will be tiny. But in many cases, the next step is towards non-invasiveness. For instance, brain–machine interfaces that you can just put on your head like a helmet. As soon as this allows you to do things like thought-control game characters or social robots it’s become a cool gadget that people will want to have. From that moment on, it is the new level of what is called ability expectation.”

But obviously, not everybody can afford an expensive device to thought-control their social robot, or even the robot in the first place.

More than healthy

This is particularly relevant in the European context, believes Wolbring, because health insurance pays for all sorts of things provided you’re ill. There is a medicalisation process going on. “We’ve seen it with Viagra and erectile dysfunction”, he says: “The industry made men feel bad about themselves so that they would buy the stuff —though finally, in most countries people must pay for Viagra themselves. In a slightly different way, we’ve also seen it with sex change operations. The healthcare system will only pay for them if people define themselves in medical terms as having a gender identity disorder— even though many of them do not at all feel this way about themselves. If ever more technologies get medicalised this way, the healthcare system will run into trouble, because we have only so many healthcare euros to spend.”

I do not want to deny useful therapeutics to people who need them."

In the United States, where health insurance is more limited, it is likely that enhancement technologies will be consumer goods right from the start. But what happens to the majority of society when only the wealthy can afford to become more–than–healthy. Will unenhanced become the new disabled?

Given that many disabled people have low (or no) incomes, Wolbring believes they will lose out in the end, “Yet ostensibly these technologies are developed for their sakes”. When you take the global view, the inequity gets even worse. In places where people can’t afford clean water or sanitation, “how can they have access to these new shiny gadgets?”

But what’s new? Don’t we already accept that some people have elite educations, seven-figure incomes and fridges full of champagne, whereas others can’t read, live as rubbish pickers and are dying for a glass of clean water? “That’s how the transhumanists argue”, Wolbring counters. “They say, ‘We accept inequity already, so what’s different with the technology inequity?’ But I, of course, fight inequity, full stop. If people’s livelihood came to depend on having access to a machine-brain interface, the device would have become a de facto obligation.”

Such a situation clashes with Wolbring’s concept of ‘ability security’, that goes along with the series of ‘human securities’ as defined by the World Health Organisation. “Ability security is about being able tohave a good life with the set of abilities that you happen to have”, he explains. “If enhancement technologies become an obligation —if I can’t say no— life will be modelled around this new technology. It will be required for employment or even education, and if you don’t want it or don’t have access to it, you will get less income, and so on.”

Not behaving in a ‘species–typical manner’ can affect employment, education, social life, political participation, asserts Wolbring. It is exactly what disabled people have been fighting for a long time. “Even today, disabled people in the United States are only protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act if their condition is not ‘fixable’. If it is, they have the obligation to obtain the fix. If they don’t, why should society have the obligation to do XYZ for you? —so the reasoning goes.”

Regulation

Prohibiting enhancement technologies is not the answer: If they fulfil an ability expectation of a powerful social group, the technology will be developed somewhere. “If Europe bans it, it will move to, say, China. And when it comes pouring out of China, suddenly all regulations will be cut in the US, in an attempt to remain the military and economic number one.”

So what can regulators do, if anything? “From an equity point of view, there are only two ways to respond to human enhancement”, according to Wolbring. “One, you make sure everybody has access – which is unlikely to be feasible. That leaves you with option number two: make sure people don’t want to acquire it to start with. What we need, therefore, is a retooling of what we think important in life. We have to realise that everyone has their worth, and that an individual’s contribution to society is not equal to their contribution to GDP.”

If such a change of culture is the only feasible option, then surely that’s up to society – governments, after all, are supposed to respect their citizens’ choices. “Oh no, I do think that governments have a role to play. Science governance should ask the hard question of which ability expectation is tenable and what will be the consequences if health consumers’ expectations rise beyond that. I’ve long been critical of the health technology assessment field, because they only consider the efficacy and safety of products and largely overlook the social dynamic, including the rise of ability expectations.”

Of course people will say that competitiveness is part of human nature, but I don’t buy it."

Another thing governments can do is fight rather than spread the message of competitiveness and productivity. “Now it is often claimed that without competitiveness, we will stagnate. This makes people want any new technology that enables them to compete more effectively with others. Of course people will say that competitiveness is part of human nature, but I don’t buy it. An acceptance of diversity and different abilities is the only answer. Without it, human enhancement will always be attractive and we’ll never get to a point where we’ll say: no, we don’t want this or that technology.”

Text: Gaston Dorren.

Photo courtesy of Gregor Wolbring.

3ipictures

‘It is not a waste of academic time to focus more on policy advice’, believes Italian scientist Professor Bonaccorsi.

Assessing the future of European society and the direction of scientific policy making is a hard one. “And sometimes it can be confusing” admits Andrea Bonaccorsi after the workshop Coordination in the Science System in Amsterdam. But his firm belief is that the quality of European science is lying behind the US, especially in emerging sciences such as IT, life sciences and material sciences, and a shift in policy is necessary for it to become more competitive and innovative:
“The worst-case scenario that could happen to Europe is that the gap between rich and poor European regions is maintained” he states. This will result in brain drain, disintegration in science systems, a highly polarised Europe resulting in a negative effect on the democratisation process on the continent.

Europe has to put more effort in attracting top scientists to compete internationally with the US and Asia

One might say Professor Bonaccorsi’s career hasbeen designed to prevent a worst-case scenario forEurope. His eagerness and ambition typify him notonly as researcher, but also as a policy advisor andperson. Bonaccorsi attributes a large role to science:it is most valuable when researchers are able to sharetheir knowledge with society, he believes. But howadaptable are scientists themselves?

“In the past, the contribution of science to societyhas been mainly indirect and mediated by specializedexpertise, separated in a profession. Today societydemands that the interaction is more direct. Scientistsoften react to this demand with anxiety, becausethey feel the risk of external influence on the searchfor knowledge and a threat to their professionalism.But this is not necessarily true. We have to trustdemocratic societies, after all”.

Innovation emergency
Besides his academic work focused on the economicsof scientific policy, technological change andinnovation, Bonacorssi fulfils an active role inadvising the Italian ANVUR (National Agencyfor the Evaluation of Universities and ResearchInstitutes) and the European Commission. WithEurope declaring a state of ‘innovation emergency’and R&D budgets lagging behind the US and Japan,what are the innovation obstacles in Europe beingconsidered by the Innovation 4 Growth (i4G) panelof which he is a member?“There is lack of financialsupport for innovative ideas generated from research,because they are perceived as too risky even bythe venture capital market. Or there are legal andadministrative obstacles to the implementation ofdemand-driven innovation policies, using publicprocurement as a leverage for innovative solutions”.

Economic studies of individual member states showthat Europe has to put more effort in attracting topscientists to compete internationally with the US and Asia in areas of rapid growth believes ProfessorBonaccorsi: “This can only be realised whenEuropean science policy focuses on three principles:the architecture of funding, clear selection andevaluation criteria and the mobility of human capital.Only with this competitive framework, can Europebecome a strong innovative continent, with respectfor diversity and local issues”.

Funding
Bonaccorsi stresses the importance of jointprogramming in the European Research Area(ERA) which will result in a more accountable andtransparent environment for research in Europe.He sees implementing multi-level funding as thekey to success. This could mean a range of differentpartners including the government (central, regionalor local), research councils, industry, foundations,NGOs and venture capitalists, playing an activerole in selecting excellent research programmes.It doesn’t necessarily need additional financing:“The fun part is that it is all about the waythose resources are organised within the science system”. Bonaccorsi stresses that if we manage torealise a more competitive model, the necessaryinnovative shift within Europe is possible.“Currently only a tiny part of research fundinggoes through a European ex ante evaluation process. If we were able to develop such a systemfor the bulk of research funding, including the onemanaged at national level, then we would have astandardised selection process and a much largerpool of resources for good quality research. The forth coming report on socio-economic benefits ofthe European Research Area makes a compellingargument for cross-border funding inviting Member States to join funding schemes using a Europeanevaluation procedure.”

Equal opportunities
When taking a closer look at how our researchsystem should be organised, Bonaccorsi believesclear selection and evaluation criteria should bestandardised and managed at European level toimprove mobility. “An excellent Greek researcherin computer sciences should have the samepossibilities as the one in Germany” he avers.But as of now, the Greek researcher has fewerinstruments than the German to find funding andcareer development opportunities. Standardisation is needed to avoid this current randomness andthe dynamics of the rich versus the periphery. It’s extremely important, believes Bonaccorsi, “to solve problems in ‘weaker’ European countries. The brain drain of less central regions should by all means be avoided”. Financial support and cross-border funding should be in place to create equal opportunities: “In some cases it is useful to double or triple investments to the so-called cohesion countries”.

3ipictures

Mobility
The mobility of human capital within Europe is a key factor in contributing to a competitive and innovative Europe. (Whether the Greek computer researcher wants to move to Germany, or vice versa, is a different matter.) Mobility enables Europe to improve areas of excellence, but moving around Europe is still not straightforward says Bonaccorsi: “The differences in welfare systems, pensions and salary between countries are just too big”. Even young scientists are discouraged to move around, and it’s obviously much easier for them than a 40-year-old researcher with a spouse or family. It is not usual in the European Research Area (ERA) to offer researchers a package – salary, welfare insurances, and career possibilities – as it is in Korea or Singapore.Although Bonaccorsi is not really afraid that European researchers move to Asia for better opportunities, European science policy should still promote mobility within Europe as a positive thing for its researchers. We should not forget that Asia is gaining ground as a research region, while their government is investing enormously into science and institutionalizing their science systems. “Asian countries are actively contributing to a recently created benchmarking system, publishing data on research volume, quality and impact, and allowing all universities to examine their positioning across 250 disciplines”, points out Bonaccorsi. “The system has been created by the United Nations University at Macau and currently covers all universities in North America and Asia (see www.researchbenchmarking.com). Paradoxically, European universities will be the last to be included in the system, because we still do not have a census of universities and a unified statistical system.” And the grinding nature of European policy making systems may be at fault: “Since 2008 we have been discussing a European ranking system: in Asia they managed it in less than one year, also covering European universities!”

Scientists should feel they are contributing to society and have a positive effect on the process of democratisation

Science friendly Europe?
So, Bonaccorsi wants more attention to clear selection and evaluation criteria, mobility of human capital and the architecture of funding through cross-border and European coordination and standardisation. This is what Europe needs to catch up internationally, and become a well-balanced, diverse but equal Europe. But what lies behind this ambition? Although Bonaccorsi favours a competitive model, it is clear he wants to promote a European science system that is friendlier for researchers to work in and they they should feel they are contributing to society and have a positive effect on the process of democratisation: “Europe is historically the home of science. It is still a friendly place for scientists, but the opportunity cost of being a productive scientist in Europe is growing.”

And many researchers are often frustrated that policy makers do not make use of their knowledge. “Maybe”, starts Bonaccorsi, but continues: “Policymakers might not use academic knowledge directly, but they will be deeply influenced by visions and arguments that they are building upon. It is not a waste of academic time to focus more on policy advice”.

Such time enables scientists to investigate a variety of issues, such as regional policies, the future of EU research and new indicators in science. “It might be a difficult attitude, still it is worthwhile” he says, as someone who has sat at innumerable policy making tables. His advice to other scientists is to follow suit: “Go directly into the field and play the game. Speak the language of policymaking. Be flexible but combine this with rigidity to the needs of the decision maker”.

About the big picture he is very clear: “I am confident that science and democracy can grow together”. In recent years, researchers may have felt threatened by governments pushing a populist rather than rational point of view. And here, according to Bonaccorsi, transparency is key: “There is even a moral obligation – ‘can you trust me?’ – science has a duty to society to produce knowledge”. And that is what will make Europe strong.

Text: Marlies Hanifer.

“Where societal tensions are high, politicians cannot afford to place their faith in the neutrality of scientific information”, believes American writer Professor Daniel Sarewitz. He does not see this as cause for regret.

Text: Marjan Slob
Photos courtesy of Daniel Sarewitz

Daniel Sarewitz meets me in the lobby of myhotel, arriving slightly late. The bearded Americanapologizes and explains that he tends to misjudgedistances in Washington D.C. This is ironic, giventhat Sarewitz has made his name by accuratelyassessing the distance between Washington andscientists. He knows that science has relatively littleinfluence here in the seat of American power. Buthe believes scientists themselves are not sufficientlyaware of this fact. They devote much time andthought to their own disciplines, but far less totheir own position within society and the definingcharacteristics of their own community. This isthe message that Daniel Sarewitz has presented incountless academic papers and journal articles.

“Did you know that only ten per cent of Americanscientists vote Republican? And you will have tolook long and hard to find any evangelical Christiansin the scientific community. Or any far rightconservatives – those who wish to limit the power ofthe state. The vast majority of American scientistsare part of a privileged elite whose politics are farfrom right-wing. If anything, they are slightly left ofcentre. These people have values and interests whichdiffer from those of large sections of society. Butbecause academic scientists form such a homogenousgroup, they are unaware of this fact.”

Scientists do not have a monopoly on the truth

It is when scientists wish to offer knowledge topoliticians that the effects of this situation becomeapparent. Good politics and good government entailtaking account of the different values and interestsof all sections of society. Scientists have little ‘feel’for such differences because they have been isolatedin their own hidebound academic community forso long, he asserts. “This gives rise to the ludicrousnotion among scientists that people would all worktogether if politicians and citizens had access to theknowledge that science can provide. Wrong!”

The homogeneity of the scientific community is,Sarewitz continues, well illustrated by the statementsone hears at conferences. “A speaker might claim,‘the climate is changing, as we all know.’ I thenthink, oh really? Do we actually know that? Don’tmisunderstand me – I too believe that the earth isbecoming warmer and that this will cause seriousproblems. But I don’t know for certain. I believe itbased on the statements made by scientists who areexperts in their field. I do not have the knowledgeneeded to assess all the information on its merits.And I am enough of a scientist to know that thereis absolutely no one who is expert enough in allsubdisciplines of climatology to arrive at any firm andunequivocal conclusions. In the end, it all comes downto confidence in the judgement of certain experts, anda personal belief that certain opinions are more likelyto reflect the truth than others.”

Sarewitz is not saying that science is inevitably‘subjective’, or that scientists are necessarilymotivated by personal interests. Rather, he believesthat the natural world is so rich and complex thatit offers scope for a range of different scientificapproaches. Each approach results in a differenttype of knowledge, and that knowledge can promptdifferent, sometimes contradictory, politicalresponses. “The problem is not that scientistsare producing knowledge which is incompleteor inaccurate. The problem is that scientists areproducing too much information. There is a glut offacts and findings from various branches of science.Those facts are all valid in themselves, but there is nocohesion between them.”

Arrogance

The result of this ‘objective surfeit’ of facts is thatit will always be possible to find two scientists withdiametrically opposing opinions, although neitheris by definition ‘wrong’. This is amply illustratedby the climate debate: “If the proponents of climatepolicy had said that they wished to follow a certaincourse based on values and principles, such as theprecautionary principle, the sceptics would have hadfar greater difficulty in opposing them. But those infavour of measures rarely mention values or principles– they merely claim that the facts are on their side.”

This ‘arrogance’ makes it both easier and safer forthe sceptics to make their voice heard. “After all,it is possible to find scientific grounds to opposepractically any model, so the political opponents needonly produce their own scientists to present counterevidence.They need not take the interests of, say, theoil industry into account. When science is given sucha major societal role, there is no room for the crucialpolitical debate about standards and values. Theemergence of the climate sceptics was therefore veryinteresting, from a political point of view.”

Scientists are not used to examining their ownvalues, and neither are they used to laying thosevalues bear for all to see. However, differentdisciplines entail different world views and willtherefore lead to different policy recommendations.A molecular biologist will approach geneticmodification from a completely different angleto that of an ecologist. These two scientists havedifferent sensibilities and different ways of lookingat the world. As Sarewitz points out, the differenceswere probably apparent long before either hadchosen to study his particular discipline.

“Once you realize this, everything falls into place.You understand why one of your contemporariesat high school opted to study psychology, whileanother wanted to be a psychiatrist. Those choiceswere determined by the type of people they are, bytheir view of their own role in life. It then comes asno surprise that psychologists accuse psychiatristsof attempting to ‘medicalize’ society, while thepsychiatrists accuse the psychologists of using ‘vagueand unscientific’ language. In science, these differencescan be traced back to schooldays or even earlier.”

The problem is that scientists are producing too much information

Once you appreciate this, you come to understandsomething else: that there is absolutely no point inturning to science if you are hoping to divorce asocial issue from ideology. “Where societal tensionsare high, politicians cannot afford to place their faithin the neutrality of scientific information.”

According to Sarewitz, the standard model in whichscience provides neutral knowledge to the politicians,who can then use that knowledge to establish aprudent policy, is false. However, it will be difficultto shake off that assumption, since both politiciansand scientists have a vested interest in maintainingthe status quo. “The scientists enjoy authority andadmiration as the ‘revealers of the truth’. For theirpart, the politicians can defer awkward discussionsabout standards and values by saying that there isinsufficient scientific knowledge on which to baseany responsible decision.”

How can this impasse be resolved? The first move,Sarewitz suggests, must be made by the scientists.“In the long term, the idea that science offers ‘thetruth’ to ‘the power’ represents a fundamental threatto scientists’ ability to influence society and edge itin the direction of prudent policy. Society itself willincreasingly question the validity of this notion. If thescientists nevertheless cling to it, their position willeventually be seriously eroded even though they stillhave a very important role to play. They can offerknowledge which is extremely valuable based on themethodology of science itself: therigour, the precision, the mutualcontrol are all unique to science.However, scientists do not have amonopoly on the truth. We mustcreate a culture which acknowledgesthat different disciplines anddifferent world views result indifferent, incomplete, insights. Itwill be culture in which we feelcomfortable with uncertainties.”

In short, we must dispense withthe traditional ‘enlightenmentmodel’ in which the scientistsprovide the information we use toshape our world. This model doesnot and cannot offer solutions tothe majority of the issues we facein practice, Sarewitz contends.Society’s problems are not like agreat puzzle to which there is astandard solution if only one wasclever enough to find it. “Themajor societal issues of today aremore of the nature of a condition,a situation in which we now findourselves. We cannot turn back the clock; there isno solution as such. So, if the situation cannot beresolved, we must find ways of living with it. In manycases, good management is the best we can achieve.”

So far, we have coped remarkably well, Sarewitzbelieves. “It seems that politicians are able tomake decisions despite not having all the scientificknowledge at their fingertips. The main issues facingthe USA at the moment are healthcare and the crisisin the financial sector. No politician has said, ‘Well,we are going to have to wait until the scientists tell uswhat to do’. These issues are seen for what they are:political problems in which there are various, oftenconflicting, interests and values at stake. I think weshould celebrate the ability of a democratic society totake action in the face of uncertainty and the glut ofincomplete knowledge.”