Thoughts on the March for Science

I went along to the March for Science in Denver. I was there in part as an observer. As someone who studies the relationship between science and politics, this was a rare opportunity to see public displays of affections and annoyances that are usually private. For social scientists who study science, there has already been plenty to observe and to criticise in the positioning and framing of this march. Much of the criticism misses the point. Notwithstanding anti-nuclear demonstrations in the 80s, this was perhaps the biggest science-centred protest in history, bringing together thousands of people in more than 500 cities around the world. When I first heard about it, I was worried that its motivations were hopelessly unclear. Having been, I relaxed.

We should not be surprised that the planning of a mass mobilisation of scientists and people who care about science is riddled with hypocrisy, confusion and error. This is politics. Some scientists might claim that they are merely marching for truth. But most would admit that they were a constituency that shared a set of broad political values too. And, as John Holdren argued on the day, they need not apologise for these.

One of many wonderful things about the institutions of contemporary science in democracies is that they are able to support contradiction, uncertainty, doubt and disagreement. Many of us in the social sciences would like to see these qualities democratised. We would like greater consideration by scientists of the profound unresolved issues within what we call ‘science’. We would draw attention to the tension between what Sheila Jasanoff has differentiated as ‘truth’ and ‘gain’ as the two grand justifications for science. (Scientists, in political debates, often thrust with claims about technology and progress but, when challenged, parry with claims about truth and objectivity).

However, the march for science that I saw, rather than being a representation of science’s issues, was a rare opportunity to talk about them. Before it began, the organisers faced difficult questions about diversity, often overlooked when science stays in the lab. Alongside the call to get science more involved in politics, there were calls to talk about the politics of science. The march has been seen by very few as the end of the conversation. As both Roger Pielke Jr and Andrew Maynard suggest, the real question is what comes next. Yes, there were plenty of placards claiming that, when it comes to climate change “the debate is over”, but the March for Science seemed more interested in opening up than closing down. And scientists, while they could do with a few tips on political messaging, do come up with some funny (albeit niche) slogans.

Here are some of my photos

 

Well done this man

DSC04816 (1).jpg

“Trump pipettes with two hands”. Scathing.

DSC04860.JPG

A tie-dye labcoat in front of the State Capitol. How very Colorado.

DSC04889.JPG

At this rate, there’s a chance this man may end up with the job.

DSC04837.JPG

Here I am with two borrowed Chemtrail signs

DSC04865 (1).jpg

The placards got even more complicated. Very few people would have got the joke. I had to get him to explain it, which he did with extreme patience. Ask a physicist what the rate of change of acceleration is called.

DSC04839 (1).jpg

“Science Trumps Politics”. Discuss. (I didn’t have the heart. They were such a nice family.)

DSC04808 (1).jpg

This placard would have got a higher grade in my University of Colorado graduate science policy class.

DSC04848 (1).jpg

While this boy was adding nuance to Denver’s science policy debate, my own kids were playing with dry ice

DSC04880.JPG

The Lorax is a big part of US Earth-Day culture. Ahem and Ahem. One of its most interesting messages is that technology can be part of the problem as well as the solution…

DSC04836.JPG

… an issue that was taken up by this guy. Great question. I love that he brought it to a science march.

DSC04988.JPG

And finally, Earth Day Yoga

DSC04991.JPG

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Talking ‘tech’ on The World This Weekend

At the start of 2017, I ventured through the snow to KGNU, Boulder’s community radio station, to record an interview with Mark Mardell for The World This Weekend on the BBC.

They edited out my citation for the quote at the start, which is a little embarrassing. I took it from this tweet:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Podcast on self-driving cars

During a visit to the wonderful people at Arizona State University’s School for the Future of Innovation and Society, Andrew Maynard and Heather Ross invited me into the podcast booth to talk about self-driving cars.

This connects to a piece on the Guardian Political Science blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Frankenstein podcast, featuring Langdon Winner

I made this podcast during a recent meeting called ‘Frankenstein’s Shadow‘, which took place at the same time (200 years on) and place (pretty much) as Mary Shelley began writing her great novel. The bulk of the podcast is a talk given by Langdon Winner, the philosopher of technology, in which he revisits his great book, Autonomous Technology, 40 years on.

My aim is to do more of these – a series of Responsible Innovation podcasts. Watch (or listen to) this space.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Acknowledging AI’s dark side

This is the text of a recent letter published in Science, for those who can’t get behind the paywall
Science 4 September 2015:
Vol. 349 no. 6252 p. 1064
DOI: 10.1126/science.349.6252.1064-c

The 17 July special section on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (p. 248), although replete with solid information and ethical concern, was biased toward optimism about the technology.

The articles concentrated on the roles that the military and government play in “advancing” AI, but did not include the opinions of any political scientists or technology policy scholars trained to think about the unintended (and negative) consequences of governmental steering of technology. The interview with Stuart Russell touches on these concerns (“Fears of an AI pioneer,” J. Bohannon, News, p. 252), but as a computer scientist, his solutions focus on improved training. Yet even the best training will not protect against market or military incentives to stay ahead of competitors.

Likewise double-edged was M. I. Jordan and T. M. Mitchell’s desire “that society begin now to consider how to maximize” the benefits of AI as a transformative technology (“Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects,” Reviews, p. 255). Given the grievous shortcomings of national governance and the even weaker capacities of the international system, it is dangerous to invest heavily in AI without political processes in place that allow those who support and oppose the technology to engage in a fair debate.

The section implied that we are all engaged in a common endeavor, when in fact AI is dominated by a relative handful of mostly male, mostly white and east Asian, mostly young, mostly affluent, highly educated technoscientists and entrepreneurs and their affluent customers. A majority of humanity is on the outside looking in, and it is past time for those working on AI to be frank about it.

The rhetoric was also loaded with positive terms. AI presents a risk of real harm, and any serious analysis of its potential future would do well to unflinchingly acknowledge that fact.

The question posed in the collection’s introduction—“How will we ensure that the rise of the machines is entirely under human control?” (“Rise of the machines,” J. Stajic et al., p. 248)—is the wrong question to ask. There are no institutions adequate to “ensure” it. There are no procedures by which all humans can take part in the decision process. The more important question is this: Should we slow the pace of AI research and applications until a majority of people, representing the world’s diversity, can play a meaningful role in the deliberations? Until that question is part of the debate, there is no debate worth having.

  1. Christelle Didier1,
  2. Weiwen Duan2,
  3. Jean-Pierre Dupuy3,
  4. David H. Guston4,
  5. Yongmou Liu5,
  6. José Antonio López Cerezo6,
  7. Diane Michelfelder7,
  8. Carl Mitcham8,
  9. Daniel Sarewitz9,
  10. Jack Stilgoe10,
  11. Andrew Stirling11,
  12. Shannon Vallor12,
  13. Guoyu Wang13,
  14. James Wilsdon11,
  15. Edward J. Woodhouse14,*

  1. 1Lille University, Education, Lille, 59653, France.

  2. 2Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, 100732, China.

  3. 3Department of Philosophy, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, 75005, France.

  4. 4School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5603, USA.

  5. 5Department of Philosophy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China.

  6. 6Department of Philosophy, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Asturias, 33003, Spain.

  7. 7Department of Philosophy, Macalester College, Saint Paul, MN 55105, USA.

  8. 8Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA.

  9. 9Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Arizona State University, Washington, DC 20009, USA.

  10. 10Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

  11. 11Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SL, UK.

  12. 12Department of Philosophy, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA.

  13. 13Department of Philosophy, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China.

  14. 14Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, USA.
  1. *Corresponding author. E-mail: woodhouse@rpi.edu
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A tale of two trials

This story is, I think, an interesting example of Responsible Research and Innovation in action. It is a story of an institute and its researchers learning from controversy and from their own experiments in public dialogue. 

In the summer of 2012, a group of polite protesters assembled at Rothamsted Research, north of London, for what turned out to be an extremely polite protest. Earlier that year, a group had threatened to destroy a young crop of experimental wheat, genetically modified with the aim of repelling aphids. Rothamsted had, to their credit, seen the planting of this crop not as an experiment to be hidden from public view (even though they are legally bound to reveal its location and timing), but rather an opportunity to open up a dialogue about the pros and cons of genetic modification as a tool to help improve food security.

Rothamsted were keen to begin a formal public dialogue process focussed on the trial. But, as I and others argued at the time, to do so would have been disingenuous given that there was, understandably, no intention of changing direction or pulling up the crop. Instead, Rothamsted, in conversation with Sciencewise, sensibly chose a strategic, forward-looking dialogue exercise centred on the building of some principles for engagement with industry (a key condensation point for public concerns about GM crops). The exercise and its report informed a new approach, giving the institution and its researchers new confidence in public discussions about contentious agricultural research.

At the same time, Rothamsted found a new use for their high-security test field (the original GM wheat trial cost less than a million pounds, but security around the experiment cost more than two million). In the Spring of 2014, a crop of Camelina that had been modified to produce Omega-3 fatty acids for nutritional purposes, was planted. As with the GM wheat trial two summers earlier, approval had been granted by the UK’s Department for Food and Environmental Affairs, but this time the institute had decided to go public before the crop was in the ground. Rothamsted sent out a public consultation and invited various stakeholders, including local organic farmers and beekeepers, along to meetings the moment the application to run the trial was made. A concern from the beekeepers about the possible spread of pollen meant that Rothamsted went beyond the demands of regulators to put a net over the crop during its pollination.

This trial itself took place in the glare of public scrutiny. The BBC filmed the sowing, the flowering and the harvesting of the plant. This time around, however, there was relatively little antagonism. In summer this year, Rothamsted published the results of the wheat trial. As with many experiments, the results were negative. The crop didn’t repel its pests as hoped. Unusually for a negative result, the paper received huge coverage and allowed Rothamsted to communicate the message that not only were they doing genuine frontier research, but also that they were doing so in public, in the open.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Paper: Geoengineering as collective experimentation

20219935I’ve just published a paper in the journal of Science and Engineering Ethics which gives a summary of one of the ideas in the book – technology as a social experiment – and develops it to discuss how we might think about the politics of conducting experiments in controversial areas of science. The paper began life at a fascinating conference hosted by a Ibo van de Poel, a philosopher in Delft running a large project looking at a range of technologies-as-experiments.

The paper is Open Access and it’s available here.

Abstract

Geoengineering is defined as the ‘deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming’. The technological proposals for doing this are highly speculative. Research is at an early stage, but there is a strong consensus that technologies would, if realisable, have profound and surprising ramifications. Geoengineering would seem to be an archetype of technology as social experiment, blurring lines that separate research from deployment and scientific knowledge from technological artefacts. Looking into the experimental systems of geoengineering, we can see the negotiation of what is known and unknown. The paper argues that, in renegotiating such systems, we can approach a new mode of governance—collective experimentation. This has important ramifications not just for how we imagine future geoengineering technologies, but also for how we govern geoengineering experiments currently under discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment