Science, Technology and Policy Making

Should scientists and technologists become more involved in policy making and/or as socio-political influencers and if so what are the resultant responsibilities of educational providers, whether in schools, colleges or universities?
The role and the influence of scientists and technologists in formulating national policy has never been more important. The scientific and technological dimensions are but two of a number of wider ranges of complex and interacting dimensions associated with the financial/political/social domain. With the increasing concerns about the long-term consequences of scientific and technological developments on the global environment and people’s lives in general, there is a need to achieve an effective balance between science/technology policy and the wider domains.
Increasingly the concept of a nation state is declining as a focus of power, being largely usurped by the growth and influence of multinational companies and corporations and the resultant global economies. There is a breakdown in the traditional paradigms for the way government and societies operate and function. This is, in part, a product of increasing disenchantment with party political representation and the resultant emergence of the power of factional interest groups and single-issue pressure groups, together with market, competition and profit values which downgrade public ownership and responsibility. These undoubtedly question traditionally understood forms of democracy and other political philosophies.
Science and technology already dominate what people take for granted in their lives and it is important that scientists and technologists recognise and accept more fully their responsibilities for these realities both as policy makers/influencers and as citizens. Scientific and technological influences will in future, have even greater prominence in daily life and in the products and services which will be in demand worldwide.
Science education, in terms of its process and content, must be reviewed and planned, so that people are better prepared for involvement in a science and technology-based workforce, or for a more informed understanding about their applications in society. A more scientifically and technologically literate society and workforce must be central in lifelong learning and a learning society.
There is a common perception that science and technology is damaging to the environment and the people’s way of life. This can create a negative and hostile view of science which manifests itself, at worst, in indifference and passivity towards the subject, or a view that it is elitist and closed. Among the sceptics are many who are interested in environmental issues but distrust the physical sciences, which they perceive to have damaged the environment and lowered the quality of life.
Products and services which people take for granted are increasingly based on science and technology, but paradoxically people do not wish to see or understand the production processes that are associated with these, often viewing them as damaging to the environment. The growth in the various lobbyists and factional groups is a symptom of how many people feel about science and technology. Some recent examples highlighted these issues, namely, the BP oil leak and deep sea drilling for oil, the reliability of data about global warming, the further development of growing GM foods, the dangers of microwave radiation from mobile phones and masts and the possible use of nano-technologies and three dimensional printing etc.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these issues, one is still left with an overwhelming sense of confusion and uncertainty about the impact of these scientific and technological developments. People must surely be able to analyse and balance all the apparently contradictory information and evidence in order to form a view about the relative merits of such developments. Education and training must play a vital role in informing judgements.
The exploitation of radiation in its medical and military uses is a classic example of the closed and mysterious activities of science and technology. The extent of the misuse of radiation, especially in the development of nuclear weapons, is only just emerging. Notwithstanding the inevitable political and nationalistic imperatives of the times, the distortion of the uses of science and technology makes scientists the architects of mass destruction in society’s view.
Even with the development of radiation diagnostic techniques in medicine, particularly with x-rays, there is now evidence of early ignorance of its dangers, both by scientists and operators. In order not to repeat these mistakes, and to help dispel the negative perception of science, scientific and technolological issues must be more openly discussed and be central to educational content and process, both at the compulsory and post-compulsory stages.
The current concerns associated with, say, global warming, and pollution, peaceful use of nuclear energy, genetic engineering, mobile phone technologies and nano-technologies, require acceptable solutions, whether based on scientific, moral, economic or political grounds. This will only be possible with a more scientifically and technologically literate society, with more open debate between the scientists, decision makers and members of society in general. The Nobel Prize to Professor Rotblat highlights the need for interest groups, which work over many years involving a number of informed and influential social and physical scientists.
Lifelong learning and training, including continuing science education, must become consonant with technological, economic, political and societal change and, it could be argued, should even move in advance of public understanding of all these and other elements of change.
In the past, the passivity of science has largely developed a reactive stance by people. If, in the future, people wish to influence the consequences of science and technology, whether known or yet to be demonstrated, there needs to be a culture of pro-activity. The growth of well informed factional interest and ‘single issue’ groups, with the resultant enhanced enablement of the individual, could help develop this pro-activity. There are some real dangers with such developments and there needs to be a sensible balance between the long-term benefits to society and the views of the factional groups. The lobbyists will raise important and legitimate concerns about scientific and technological developments. However, they actually could impede important, strategic and beneficial advances. A more informed populace, which is more self critical about consumer needs, could bring about more effective and acceptable changes associated with the consultation and planning phases.
Practicing scientists/technologists must be key players in policy formulation, as science contributes to many elements of current and future policy. Science sees itself as being objective and deterministic. It should and can moderate policy. The right questions need to be raised. The key is how they should be framed within the wider social/political/financial domains. Should scientists and technologists be ‘on top’ or ‘on tap’ andhow should this be managed within the strategic partnership that will finally articulate and form the policy?
There is a major challenge ahead for teachers and institutions to find ways to produce a more scientifically and technological literate society, which can be more aware of the possible consequences of scientific and technologic advances and developments. Equally important is preparation of front-line scientists/technologists to network among and beyond themselves. They need become more ‘aware’ of the possible consequences of their discoveries and their resultant productions and help society to understand the implications clearly. In addition they must be good communicators and manage public relations to a high order.
Print Friendly