[Seminar] Impartial Assessment and Bounded Engagement

Seminar

Title: Impartial Assessment and Bounded Engagement

Speaker: David Cope

Affiliation: Foundation Fellow of Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, UK

Abstract:

This presentation will to an extent explore some of the themes introduced in the first lecture in the series, by Dr. Pierre Delvenne – and also introduce some additional considerations on science in policymaking.

All scientists (I include engineers in that term) are ‘experts’ in their own area – they know more about it than members of the ‘general public’ and even scientists working in other areas. What are the implications of this fact when scientists are called upon to give advice in policymaking related to their subject area? This will obviously depend to an extent on the nature of the scientific area involved. For ‘pure’ scientific areas (such as astrophysics, or some areas of earth sciences) – the only policy issue is really the amount of public funding that should go to such research. This is because the only impact of such research on societies is that of enhancing general knowledge (which may be highly valued).

With ‘applied’ science – that is, technology (including, obviously, medical research) – the situation is very different – and the entire practice of ‘technology assessment’ has arisen to address this difference. A technology, by definition, is likely to lead to a changed world from that which would have existed without its deployment.

The economic and social circumstances of individuals and groups are impacted upon – and this has led to pressures for those so affected to be involved in decision-making – even about the fundamental science underlying technological diffusion. What are the implications of this for scientists? Has this entire process led to a devaluation of scientific expertise? Has the time come for – not a recreation of deference to scientific expertise (if that ever existed) but a re-acknowledgement of the role of expertise – for a new compact to emerge between societies and scientists in which the former place a trust in the latter to make, or at least advise on – decision-taking on their behalf. Such a compact axiomatically would involve scientists demonstrating an impartiality in their analyses and any recommendations they might make. How can such impartiality be demonstrated by – and indeed inculcated in – scientists?

A powerful theme running through the development of technology assessment over the past quarter of a century has been the desirability of ‘public engagement’ in policy making for deployment, and even initial exploration of, technological opportunities. In many respects, this can be seen as an unexceptional and desirable extension of more general democratic developments. But, have the calls for extension of this engagement been themselves motivated solely by an impartial desire to extend democratic principles, or have they been selective and value-driven? Moreover, have the various procedures used to try to explore and promote public engagement been flawed to a greater or lesser extent in design and execution? Perhaps the time has come to move towards a ‘bounded engagement’ where expertise is accorded the right, through trust – to set the boundaries of what is relevant to a specific decision, or even broader, overarching, context-setting debates about technology.

Finally, the lecture will invite some real engagement by the audience to help to inform my latest research explorations. These are into what may be the necessary ingredients of any ‘compact’ between scientists and the public. In particular, I would like to explore concepts of culpability as they relate to trust. What responsibilities do scientists feel they have for any undesirable outcomes that may flow from their work? What responsibilities should they have? What mechanisms might need to be put into place to encourage any new trust-placing compacts?

Short biography:

Professor David Cope is a Foundation Fellow of Clare Hall, at the University of Cambridge, the university's special international college for advanced study. He is also a visiting professor at University College London and Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan.

For fourteen years until 2012, he was the Director of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology of the UK's parliament. During that period, he was responsible for the production of over 300 parliamentary briefings on scientific and technological subjects, as well as numerous oral advisory sessions for parliamentary committees and visiting delegations from overseas.

Before joining the UK Parliament, he was Professor of Energy Economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, where he went after eleven years as Director of the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, also at Cambridge.

For six years he was the first Environmental Team Leader with the International Energy Agency. He began his academic career as Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Studies at Nottingham University, where he first developed an interest in technology assessment - a subject on which he has written and lectured extensively. This interest was greatly promoted by a scholarship from the US embassy in London that enabled him to spend sabbatical leave with the US Congress' S&T office in Washington DC, USA. He returned there in 2013 and 2014 with a special award from the UK government.

Making sense of Science in policy-making seminars

A cycle of seminars entitled “Making sense of Science in policy-making” will take place in ITQB, organized under the European project PACITA (Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment), PACITA is a four-year EU financed Action Plan (FP7), aimed at supporting knowledge-based policy-making on issues involving science, technology and innovation.

Science and technology intersect with countless areas of public policy. Take for example, funding for embryonic stem cell research as a major political issue; debates over privacy and use of genetic data or reality and extent of climate change. Discussion of these issues often turns back to a common set of questions about the relationship between science and policy. Is scientific and technological development a force beyond human control or can it be governed? Can only scientists judge the value of scientific research programs or the validity of scientific results? How can practices of sense-making and governance of science be reconciled?

Speakers with different backgrounds, experiences and views will be invited to discuss the relationship between science and policy and also to introduce the concept of Technology Assessment as a tool that can contribute to policy-making on science and technology.