By Rebecca Robinson
Paths towards sustainability and technology in tension (286)
Sound science cannot replace democracy (the debate between evidence and policy)
Evidence is dependent upon framing of questions and responses
“…available science could not provide an unambiguous basis for policy.”
In regard to nuclear energy, “…different equally ‘scientific’ studies often obtain radically different results.” (287)
Science is a “…necessary rather than a sufficient condition for effective policy.”
“Moreover – in any case – how well does economic competitiveness alone address wider dimensions of human progress (Daly and Cobb, 1989)?
Reservations about globalization are dismissed as “anti-technology bias”(288)
“Again, the particular political position of one powerful social actor [Deputy Director General of the UN] is being justified by reference to the ostensibly apolitical general character of S&T.”
“What is curious about the hegemonic status of this simplistic, one-directional idea of technological innovation is that it has been thoroughly discredited in virtually every relevant field of academic study.” “…not based on ‘sound science’!”
New innovations arising not necessarily from nature but from human creativity
No guarantee that the market will identify and pursue the “most socially appropriate pathways.” – currently, they tend to favor specific interests (289)
Pro-innovation polemic undermines what it is supposedly bolstering-“Open discussion and active contention over alternative directions for innovation are actually a celebration of the true importance and excitement of technology.”
“Precautionary principle” decried as “Panic Attack”
“Again, the same themes emerge, in which science is presented as unambiguous, incontrovertible and complete, technology as undifferentiated and self-evidently good and scepticism over any particular technology as irrational and prejudiced.”
Precautionary measures do not reject all technology- “The concept of precaution has become salient – and attracts such criticism – precisely because it holds very concrete implications for practical choices between contending technological pathways.”(290)
“The classic enunciation remains Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration: ‘. . . Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’ (UNCED, 1992).
Dismissing public concern as “anti-technology” reinforces what it is meant to prevent- “Animated invective over ‘panic-stricken’, ‘prejudiced’, ‘irrational’ publics serves only to undermine such mature and measured policy processes. The resulting polarization serves ironically to accentuate the very threat it purports to resist.” (291)
Prescriptions: 1) “more accessible acknowledgement of the conditioning role played by subjective values and interests,” 2) not just outcomes but also processes should be of human interest, 3) “broader-based process of technology appraisal necessarily involves
active and transparent stakeholder deliberation and citizen participation,” 4) “we resist the temptation to treat the social appraisal of technology as a managerial exercise in the delivery of political justification and legitimacy” (292), “…instead of seeking single defi natively ‘legitimate’ or ‘robust’ technological strategies, we might instead come to appreciate the multiple benefits of technological diversity.” (293)
Could the global ecosystem support everyone in the world if we were all living with the technologically advanced lifestyle of the United States? Is it fair that some people are blocked from this possibly by subsidizing the access elsewhere?
