Science Cheerleader

Last week, Nature Magazine’s Daniel Sarewitz, wrote this about a science policy initiative SciCheer helped to inspire:

“More and earlier public involvement is required to steer powerful new technologies wisely….Relative to the cost of research and development, increasing this capacity would be cheap. It could be paid for by a small tithe on the federal research budget, and coordinated by one or more loose networks of non-governmental groups, research universities, and government laboratories (for example, see www.ecastnetwork.org). New social networking technologies could permit such discussions on scales from local to international, in venues ranging from science museums and research laboratories to presidential commissions and nationwide virtual conferences. This is the momentum of democracy. In the long run, it will also be the best thing for science.”

His column,  “Not by experts alone” boldly and clearly states the case for participatory technology assessment. Readers of Science Cheerleader know this is something of an obsession of mine. This passion led to the incarnation of ECAST (which has been cited or endorsed by the White House, Nature Magazine, and dozens of other academic, professional, and mainstream publications): Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. This network of universities, science centers, and policy makers, anchored by the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., will play ring-leader to several forthcoming pilot projects designed to integrate public participation into critical discussions of emerging technologies (synthetic biology to name one).

Why is this important? I’ll turn the mic back to Sarewitz:

We are an innovating species, engaged in a balancing act. In the decades after the Second World War, innovation fuelled an unprecedented era of wealth creation while keeping us on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The green revolution fed billions while poisoning soil and water and destroying agrarian cultures. Today, synthetic biology and geoengineering portend a future in which managing socio-technical complexity will be every bit as challenging, if not more so. Is there a better way forward?

Maybe — if we act fast, embrace our ignorance, and keep experts from taking over.

Once a complex technology is widely used — like the automobile or the coal-fired power plant — restricting, reorienting or replacing it becomes incredibly difficult. So the key to making better choices is to start early, when uncertainty about a technology’s future is high, by maximizing the diversity of perspectives and interests involved in the discussion.

The goal is not to convince the hoi polloi that they have nothing to fear, but to improve social outcomes of emerging technologies. Scientists may be inclined to ignore or dismiss the efforts of non-experts to influence complex technical discussions — for example, in discounting the views of English sheep farmers during the response to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, or belittling the critiques of AIDS patients in early efforts to develop treatments. But when it comes to the future of an emerging technology, no one (or everyone) is an expert.

If you’d like to learn more or get involved, simply go to the  (beta) ECAST website and  sign up.  We’ll send you news and invitations as they become available.

Next up in the realm of science policy and public participation….The U.S. Government Accountability Office just made public one if its reports. I spoke with GAO’s Chief Scientist, Tim Persons, about this report and its implications. Stay tuned for more on that interview.

Nice feature in the May edition of the American Chemical Society’s magazine:

Momentum for technology assessment based on input from everyday citizens who are not experts in a particular topic, or participatory technology assessment, is just beginning to build in the U.S. To get the conversation started, a group of institutions, universities, and science museums, as well as a former Philadelphia 76ers cheerleader turned science policy enthusiast (C&EN, Jan. 12, 2009, page 56), have teamed up and proposed a network dedicated to the process.

Called Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST), the project is envisioned to be a geographically distributed network of complementary institutions that are independent of government. Nonpartisan policy research organizations would help broadly disseminate information to decisionmakers. Universities would both help assess technology and develop new ways to assess it. And science museums would help educate the public and inform society in user-friendly ways.

Read the full article, here.

On Sunday, the same day the New York Times featured YOUR future–aka Singularity, read on–on the cover of its business section, I was listening to the head cheerleader of all-things-Singularity, Ray Kurzweil, as he presented the future of humanity at the H+ Summit at Harvard. You might recall that we interviewed Ray on SciCheer sometime last year.

Ray and I, along with several others, were speakers at the H+ Summit, the theme of which was The Rise of the Citizen Scientist. I spoke about “citizen scientists” as I know them. (A copy of my powerpoint presentation can be found, below. I’ll post a link to the video when I have it.) As it turns out, my definition of citizen science isn’t quite the same as the who follow the Transhumanist/Singularity philosophy. While they are very interested and enthusiastic about what “our” citizen scientists are doing–and quite a visionary and friendly group of people, I might add–they are more interested in how humans can, ultimately, harness the deepest powers of technology to  “seize control of the evolutionary process” and create immortality.

I’ll do my best to explain what this means by pulling excerpts from my past interview with Ray Kurzweil:

Ray’s “short version” definition of  Singularity:  “The Singularity is a future time when the pace of technological change will be so fast and transformative that you will not be able to follow it unless you merge with the intelligent technology we are creating.”

How this work will and when: “Accessing the web from inside our brains is one good example of what we will see in about twenty years. The machine extensions to our brains will grow exponentially both in hardware and software capability. By the late 2030s, it will be the nonbiological portion of our intelligence that predominates.”

No thanks, I like things just the way they are. “First of all, it is human to change who we are. We didn’t stay on the ground, we didn’t stay on the planet, and we have not stayed with the limitations of our biology. Human life expectancy was 23 a thousand years ago. We are the only species that changes who we are and extends our reach, both physical and mental, through our tools. So it is human to change who we are. There will always be early and late adopters, but people are not going to completely dismiss these changes. How many people today complete reject medical and health technologies? When there is a therapy based on blood cells devices that overcome a particular disease, very few if any people will reject it. People put computers in their brains today if they have Parkinson’s Disease. People do not reject this FDA approved therapy due to philosophical issues.”

The buzz kill: real concerns that microscopic robots will pose a threat to the world: “Yes, that is called the grey goo scenario, and the narrative thread in the movie illustrates this danger. I do think we can manage that through a combination of ethical standards to build in safeguards into nanotechnology, as well as a rapid response system that detects threats and immediately deals with them, just like our biological immune system is designed to do. But this is not something we should be sanguine about. We need to be very diligent about it.”

So, there’s your future. Want to have a say? First step, head over to the beta website of ECAST (Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology) and sign up so we can keep you apprised of so-called “participatory” opportunities. We (see below) set up ECAST precisely so the public and scientists can inform each other on emerging technologies so smart, representative policies are initiated. And, as stated before: government policymakers, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and citizens need such analysis to capably navigate the technology-intensive world in which we now live.

“We”=Science Cheerleader, Arizona State University, Boston Museum of Science, the Loka Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.

Now, more than ever, we need to get in front of emerging technologies to help shape our future.

As promised, here’s a copy of my presentation.

We’re on a roll, team! Two years ago this month, ScienceCheerleader.com launched with three goals:

1) help increase adult science literacy (see Brain Makeover). [Check!]

2) raise the ranks of citizen scientists and create a shared space for researchers and the public to socialize and work together. (see ScienceForCitizens.net) [Check!]

3) open doors to public participation in science policy (see this breaking news item) [Check!]

Thursday’s ground-breaking announcement in Washington, D.C. marked an important milestone for us (we accomplished the third goal); but, more importantly, it has already started to alter thinking in Washington, D.C. and within the science community.

Two years ago, some folks thought I was “misguided,” “naive,” “nuts,” to push for this level of public participation in science. (It’s one thing to ask someone to help count fireflies or monitor water quality, but to suggest people might add value to critical science policy discussions sometimes drew reactions of shock and horror.)

In two short years, the reactions have changed considerably. On Thursday,  when we issued a report on how to build a 21st century technology assessment mechanism, and announced the formation of a network that will put the report into action, the response was incredible. From Beth Noveck at the White House, to representatives from the EPA and other government agencies as well as universities, museums–and, yes, even scientists–the reception was remarkably warm if not enthusiastic.

Here’s a virtual toast to everyone who helped make this happen. Now rest up because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

You’ve put up with my nonstop cheerleading for more public involvement in science policy matters. Thank you! Come bear witness to the fruits of much labor. One of my partners in crime, Richard Sclove, will release an incredible report on the need for the U.S.A. to reinvent technology assessment to reflect a 21st century way of thinking. During this public event, we will make a very exciting announcement about plans to put the pedal to the metal, put our money where our mouths are, walk the talk…you get it.

Please join us in person or via webcast. I hope you’ll hop on board for this journey. There will be plenty of opportunities to take part in this trailblazing effort.

REINVENTING TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
A 21st Century Model
Around the world the pace, complexity, and social significance of technological changes are increasing. Yet the broad social ramifications are often not considered until after new technologies become widely adapted and entrenched. This makes the need for technology assessment (TA) greater than ever, sparking renewed interest in TA models, practices, and evaluation.

Join us on Wednesday, April 28th, at 3:00 p.m. for a discussion of a new report that explores possible future options for technology assessment and ways to use citizen participation, collaboration, and expert analysis to inform and improve decision-making on issues involving science and technology.

You must register to attend the event.

Please RSVP at
stip@wilsoncenter.org

*** Webcast LIVE at www.wilsoncenter.org/stip ***

No RSVP required to view the webcast.

What: REINVENTING TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A 21st Century Model

When: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 3:00 – 4:30 PM ( reception to follow)

Who:   
Richard Sclove, Ph.D., Founder and Senior Fellow, The Loka Institute

Commenter: Paul Stern, Ph.D., National Research Council

Moderator: David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program

Where: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 5th Floor Conference Room

I’m an R. Surprised an R would dedicate her career to science literacy and citizen participation in science and policy? Me too!   I can understand why Newt Gingrich isn’t keen on spending public dollars to create, yet another, Congressional agency. But he’s wrong to think the Office of Technology Assessment, which he axed in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, was a waste of public dollars and resources. The scientists and policy wonks who worked there published hundreds of reports at the request of Congress to help them make sense of often complicated science and technology policy matters. You can find archives of the reports here. Many are still referenced today.

Last year, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it has sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I’m thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA.

I stumbled upon the OTA as a graduate student at UPenn (this is me on graduation day with comedian Yakov Smirnoff, seriously!) where my History and Sociology of Science professor handed me an assignment to “write about the rise and the fall of the OTA.” I read every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA. I even met with Newt Gingrich and Rep. Rush Holt and chatted with Rep. Vern Elhers and several of the architects of the OTA.
I was convinced that Congress was lost a bit without its only source of dedicated, nonpartisan tech assessments and believed the Office should be refunded (it was never really killed by Congress…it was just stripped of its $23million +/- budget).

However, in this era of public participation, open source, collaboration, and transparency, I sought to open a new, decentralized, 21st Century OTA, one that would provide a mechanism to both inform the public and seek their input before Bills are posted for public comment (who really comments on posted Bills besides lobbyists and special interest groups anyway?). It’s not an entirely new idea. Richard Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, more than hinted at this suggestion back in the 80s. Ironically, following a major public, political and economic disaster surrounding the 1990s roll out of genetically modified foods in Europe, the E.U. opened parliamentary OTAs with a twist: the science and technology assessment undertaken by the experts at their OTAs often include citizen participation as this has been found to help assess risk, create a better informed public, and better understand societal implications of emerging technologies. All of which are key ingredients in good policy making decisions, no?  Do you want scientists or special interest groups to represent you and your questions/concerns societal impacts of science and emerging technologies? Congress knows no more than you do about these and many other scientific issues and they openly admit this. While I think it’s imperative for scientists to drive a discussion and impart their expertise on such matters, it’s equally vital that WE are afforded the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on these matters BEFORE Bills are created.
This is where the organizers of the current effort to reopen the OTA (the science community) and I differ. For the most part, they either do not understand or they don’t see the value in public participation. I can understand why if recent Town Hall meetings are what they’re basing their opinions on…but that’s not the type of participation I’m advocating for. I’m talking about a deliberate, well-constructed, inclusive approach that’s been proven to be successful in Europe (and even in China for crying out loud) and here in the U.S. although those efforts were not directly tied to Congress.

For this reason, while I wish the scientists well in their effort to persuade Congress to refund the old OTA (for the most part, although Congress did recently appropriate funds to the Government Accountability Office specifically for “technology assessments” )  I am helping to organize a new network that values the significance of both expert and citizen analysis in technology assessment. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming weeks. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join me for the journey.
In the interim, here’s what Newt recently said about the OTA. Editorial note here: this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA w/o public participation-not only is he suggesting an “expert-only” approach, but a mere handful of experts at that. This former cheerleader can smell a clique a mile away

When irony is just too much.    In my never-ending effort to help “average” citizens get involved in science and science policy matters, I had quite an eye-opening experience Saturday night.
Local bartender (granted he was drunk) said to me ” I defriended you on Facebook you know. I got tired of what you were posting. Science this and science that, waa, waa, waa.”
Me: “Why, I never grow tired of your posts about your new baby’s pooping schedule.”
Him: “Seriously, you shouldn’t be writing about stuff like that. We need to stick together. Let those people [finger quotes] write about and think about that and let us talk about stuff we should be talking about. You need to remember your place in this world.”
Me: “Hmmm. I may need to find a way to filter certain [finger quotes] voices from any crowdsourcing, participatory activities I’m planning…(thinking back to people telling me why we shouldn’t have the public weigh in on science policy issues…  ”you haven’t met enough people if you really think everyone should be invited to weigh in.”)
Him: “Well now that we have an understanding, I’ll refriend you on FB.”

Clearly Joe doesn’t feel worthy of taking a seat at the “participatory” table. It’s unfortunate and surely Joe’s not alone. He doesn’t want to learn about issues he feels he has no business talking about. Joe has no shortage of opinions. He’s also an influencer (he made a point of telling me he has more friends on facebook than I do…nice). By enlisting people like Joe, real change can start to take place. But Joe needs to be convinced that he’s entitled to participate. I’ll work on Joe but anyone involved in science and policy should consider having these types of conversations outside of their labs, offices, classrooms and conferences. Go to your corner tap room from time to time to take the pulse of the American public. I promise you , you’ll learn something.

For those of you who may be wondering what’s become of the effort to Reopen the Office of Technology Assessment, with public participation, I’ll have something to report in a few weeks!

Exciting week! Score ONE for our ongoing efforts to help Congress get the information it needs to form sound science policy!

The American Association for the Advancement of Science announced a venture, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, called Expert Labs. This new, non-profit independent lab, will “help policy makers in the U.S. Federal Government tap into the expertise of their fellow citizens.” Fellow EXPERT citizens, that is. You, me, folks like us…well, we’re still left out of the discussion, for now. But I’m here to tell you, things are a-changing! Stay tuned.

In the interim, I ask of the AAAS, MacArthur Foundation and the very talented director of Expert Labs (Anil Dash): Why didn’t you just include a way for non-expert citizens to weigh in on the societal implications of these policies? That’s the real point of “opening government to the people” isn’t it? Peer-to-Policy so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled at this latest development and all 661 of you who signed this petition should be, too. But, clearly, our work isn’t finished. Not until our “non expert” opinions are taken into consideration….
Cheers!

Darlene

Pictured with me are David Guston (Professor of Science Policy at Arizona State University) and on the right is David Rejeski (Director, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars). The three of us, plus Richard Sclove (Founder, Loka Institute; U.S. Advisor, Worldwide Views on Global Climate Change) are hashing out a plan to create a participatory technology assessment agency. (Read: citizen input in federal tech policy discussions.)  Very exciting stuff. I’ll keep you posted on developments.
On Wednesday, we met with at the Wilson Center with Rich Hung (Government Accountability Office) and John Wonderlich (Sunlight Foundation) to discuss this very topic. Then, Dave, Dave and I had lunch and posed with this giant pumpkin. So, how much do you think this pumpkin weighs?
After lunch, I skipped across the street to the Museum of American History where I bumped into this wax replica of Ira Remsen (1846-1927)the first Professor of Chemistry at Johns Hopkins. He pushed for the support of “pure” science for its own sake instead of the more traditional “outdoor” sciences such as natural history and geology. Remsen is credited with creating a pioneering lab at Hopkins, later modeled by other universities. These labs are considered the main training ground for American scientists.

My podcast interview with Sean from ScienceChat (Ireland). In this piece we talk about science literacy and citizen involvement in science policy. That was fun, Sean! Although, for some reason, I sound a little like Hillary Clinton when. she. was. on. the. campaign. trail. (Very de-li-ber-ate delivery.)