From loka@amherst.edu Fri Sep 4 11:39:44 1998 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 10:56:11 -0500 (EST) From: LOKA INSTITUTE To: LOKA-L@lists.amherst.edu Subject: DEMOCRATIZING SCIENCE (in _Science_ magazine!): Action Alert! Loka Alert 5:2 (4 March 1998) Please Repost Widely Where Appropriate DEMOCRATIZING POST-COLD WAR SCIENCE POLICY: Action Opportunities! (Editorial from _Science_ Magazine by Richard Sclove) Friends and Colleagues: This is one in an occasional series of electronic postings on democratic politics of science and technology, issued by the nonprofit Loka Institute. Below is an editorial about democratizing U.S. science policy that I have just published in _Science_ magazine (27 Feb. issue). It is followed by some suggested easy steps you can take right now to promote post-Cold War science and technology policies that are more socially responsive and responsible. There's a political opportunity here; let's work together to use it! If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute's E-mail list, please send a message to: . Please invite interested friends and colleagues to subscribe too. Thank you! --Dick Sclove Executive Director The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004-0355 USA E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu World Wide Web: http://www.amherst.edu/~loka ** PLEASE NOTE THE LOKA INSTITUTE'S NEW PHONE & FAX NUMBERS ** Tel. +(413) 559-5860; Fax +(413) 559-5811 ***************************************************************** CONTENTS (1) Introduction................................... (12 lines) (2) "Better Approaches to Science Policy" (Loka Editorial in _Science_ magazine)...... (1-1/2 pages) (3) What You Can Do................................ (1 page) (4) About the Loka Institute (including Internship Opportunities)................... (1/2 page) (5) Follow-up References for the _Science_ Editorial................................... (1/2 page) (6) Update on "Mourning Technology Review" (Loka Alert 4:6).................................. (16 lines) ***************************************************************** BETTER APPROACHES TO SCIENCE POLICY by Richard E. Sclove (1) INTRODUCTION Long-time readers of Loka Alerts will find the content of the editorial that follows familiar. What is unusual is the venue: _Science_ magazine is the leading professional science journal published in the United States, and it publishes only one editorial per issue. I take the fact that _Science_ made the unusual decision to publish an editorial calling for more social responsiveness in science policymaking as a hopeful sign. A post-Cold War thaw may finally be starting in U.S. science and technology institutions. On the other hand, the thaw after a long freeze can produce a sulfurous swamp, lifeless hardpan, or a blooming meadow. After the editorial I list a few steps you can take right now to help get those flowers blooming! ***************************************************************** [The editorial that follows is reprinted with permission from _Science_ magazine, Volume 279, Number 5355, Issue of 27 February 1998, p. 1283. Copyright 1998 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. Readers may view, browse, and/or download this material for temporary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, adapted, performed, displayed, published, or sold in whole or in part, without prior written permission from AAAS.] (2) BETTER APPROACHES TO SCIENCE POLICY, by Richard E. Sclove Who should sit at the table when science policy is being decided? Across the higher echelons of U.S. government, the long-standing norm is to invite scientific leaders, but no one else who will be affected or who might have an illuminating alternative perspective. For example, to help frame a year-long effort to develop a post-Cold War U.S. science policy, the House Science Committee on 23 October convened an elite group: the presidents of the National Academies of Science and Engineering, representatives from the Council on Competitiveness, leaders of the Sandia and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, the president of MIT, and so on. Notably absent were any representatives from the many grassroots, worker, and public-interest organizations concerned with science policy. There were no social scholars of science, no proponents of alternative science policies (from within the science community or without), and only a solitary science policy critic. This event's restricted roster was hardly anomalous. For example, in 1992 and 1993--when Democrats controlled Congress-- the House Science Committee organized 30 hearings on a comprehensive National Competitiveness Act. Among 120 invited witnesses, there was not one from an environmental, defense conversion, or labor organization commenting on a major piece of legislation with ecological, employment, and other social implications. In the Executive Branch, the composition of high-level science advisory panels--such as the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science Board--is similarly constricted. The problem with exclusively elite, insider approaches to science policy-making is that they fly in the face of inescapable realities: (i) All citizens support science through their tax dollars and experience the profound consequences of science, both good and bad. (ii) In a democracy, those who experience the consequences of an activity and those who pay for it ordinarily expect a voice in decisions. (iii) Scientific leaders have no monopoly on expertise, nor do they have a privileged ethical standpoint, for evaluating the social consequences of science and of science policies. (iv) Nonscientists already do contribute to science and science policy (for example, women's organizations have redirected medical research agendas to reduce gender biases). (v) Elite-only approaches are antithetical to the open, vigorous, and creative public debate on which democracy, policy-making, and science all thrive. (vi) There is a danger that public support for science will erode if other perspectives are excluded. (vii) With the Cold War concluded, it is time for science policy to welcome new voices and fresh ideas for addressing the social needs of the 21st century. There are proven methods that use broadened representation to inform and improve decisions. The Swedish government's Council for Planning and Coordination of Research includes a majority of nonscientists and is noted for promoting innovative inter- disciplinary research programs. Japan, Germany, and other European nations have pioneered processes fostering collaboration between industrial engineers, university scientists, workers, and end-users in developing new technologies. Dutch universities advance social responsiveness via a decentralized national network of "science shops" that address questions posed directly by community and worker groups, public-interest organizations, and local governments. For a decade, the Danish government has appointed panels of everyday citizens to cross-examine a range of experts and stakeholders, to deliberate, and then to announce nonbinding science policy recommendations at a national press conference. A 1989 Danish citizens' panel on the Human Genome Project seconded expert support for basic genetics research, but called for more research on the interplay between environmental factors and genetic inheritance and on the social consequences of science, while influencing the Parliament to prohibit the use of genetic screening information in employment and insurance decisions. This carefully structured, participatory process is already being emulated in other countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, and has undergone an independent pilot-scale demonstration in the United States. Experiences such as these can light the way toward U.S. science policies that are more socially responsive and responsible, more widely supported, and more consonant with the tradition of openness that is the true lifeblood of science and a healthy democracy. ______________ Richard E. Sclove is executive director of the Loka Institute, Amherst, MA, USA, and author of _Democracy and Technology_ (Guilford Press). E-mail: ; Web: . ***************************************************************** (3) WHAT YOU CAN DO From World War II through the end of the Cold War, U.S. science and technology institutions were powerfully shaped by national security imperatives. In the aftermath of the Cold War, science and technology bureaucracies (e.g., universities, federal agencies, national laboratories, and corporations) have generally tried to remobilize for a new "war"--a war for strategic position in the global economy. But there are other choices. We could take advantage of the end of the Cold War to rebuild a science and technology infrastructure guided by broader and more humane social imperatives--such as social justice, democracy, environmental sustainability, high quality jobs, healthy communities, and a sane pace of life. You can contribute to the post-Cold War thaw, and press for more humane and socially responsive U.S. science and technology policies, by communicating your views to the Clinton Administration and to the U.S. Congress. There's a strateigc opportunity here, but nothing good will happen if you and I don't make an effort. Please send a short note supporting Loka's editorial, and adding your own views or recommendations, to one or all of the following forums. And pass this Alert around, inviting others to do the same. (If you visit the Loka Institute's homepage at you will find all of the following suggestions, along with hot links to make the steps easier for you): A. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has asked the House Science Committee to propose a post-Cold War U.S. science policy. Visit the Web page for this process at: http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm and leave a comment there. Committee staff tell us that your comment will have more impact if it is polite, substantive, specific, and succinct (ideally no more than one page long; two pages maximum). Staff will ask you for follow-up information if they are interested. (If you are a U.S. citizen, you might increase your odds of being taken seriously if you send a copy of your message to your own Congressman. You can locate your Congressman via the Web at .) B. President Clinton has just announced proposed changes in his top science policy advisors and administrators. E-mail your comments on U.S. science policy to outgoing Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Gibbons ; to newly nominated Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. Neal Lane ; and to the newly nominated director of the U.S. National Science Foundation, Dr. Rita Colwell . (We would be grateful if you would also E-mail a copy of your comments to us at the Loka Institute: .) If you are writing before March 13, you might mention your concern that Vice President Gore (and possibly President Clinton) is scheduled to participate in a March 13th "National Summit" on Innovation, organized at MIT by the Council on Competitivenss (COC); the attendees of this event--which is closed to the public, but open to the COC's corporate and university executives--will "vote" their preferences on U.S. R&D policy. (For info about the COC, go to on the Web.) C. If you want to discuss the democratization of U.S. science and technology policy with others, subscribe to FASTnet (the listserv of the Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network), and post your comments there. To subscribe, send an E-mail message to with a blank subject line and the message: subscribe FASTnet D. From 19 Dec. 1997-12 Feb. 1998 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes _Science_ magazine, organized an online forum--the AAAS Conversation on Science and Society. The AAAS forum is not currently accepting new posts, but you can read the archives (on the Web at ), and keep tabs on the AAAS Web pages for future forums promised for later in 1998. ***************************************************************** (4) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE The Loka Institute is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization dedicated to making science and technology responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns. TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE, to participate in our on-line discussion groups, to order publications, or to help please visit our Web page: . Or contact us via E-mail at . INTERNSHIPS: The Loka Institute has openings for volunteers, paid interns, and paid work-study students for 1998 (and beyond). We are a small but internationally influential nonprofit organization, and the activities in which interns are involved vary from research assistance and writing to assisting in organizing conferences, project development and management, fundraising, managing our Internet lists, Web page updates, helping with clerical and other office work, etc. If you are interested in working with us to promote a democratic politics of science and technology, please send a hard copy resume along with a succinct letter explaining your interest to: The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. THANKS: The Loka Institute has been receiving wonderful advice and support from our Board of Directors: Carolyn Raffensperger (Chair), John Gerber, Helan Page, Jeff Scheuer, Marcie Sclove, and Frank von Hippel. Thank you! Thanks also to our growing family of donors! TO LEARN MORE about the Loka Institute's concerns and vision, see Loka founder Richard Sclove's book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_--recipient of the 1996 Don K. Price Award of the American Political Science Association as "the year's best book on science, technology and politics". For a paperback copy, contact your local bookseller, Guilford Press (in the U.S. telephone toll free 1-800-365-7006; or, from anywhere, fax Guilford Press in the U.S. at +1-212-966-6708 or E-mail: ), or order on the Web from . "Mr. Sclove is refreshing in the way he rejects ideas so nearly universally held that most people have never thought to question them." -- _New York Times Book Review_ ***************************************************************** (5) References for Richard Sclove's _Science_ Editorial: o In preparing this editorial I benefitted from the constructive comments of Frank von Hippel, Roger Pielke, and Dan Sarewitz (none of whom, of course, bear responsibility for parts of the editorial you dislike). o In 1994 I analyzed the opportunity for promoting post- Cold War science and technology policies in a consultant's report to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. You can view the report on MacArthur's Web page at: http://www.macfdn.org/reports/techno.htm See also Dan Sarewitz's fine book: _Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress_ (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996). o I learned about the Swedish Council for Long Range Planning and Research from the research of Susan Cozzens and Werner Matthisen. For more information, contact Prof. Susan Cozzens, Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Sage 5207, Troy, NY 12180-3590, USA; Tel. +(518) 276-6598; Fax +(518) 276-2659; E-mail . o For an introduction to the concept and practice of participatory design of new technologies, see "Technology By the People" on the Loka Institute Web page at: http://www.amherst.edu/~loka/alerts/loka.4.1 o On the Dutch "science shops" and the Loka Institute's related initiative to develop a U.S. and worldwide Community Research Network (CRN), go to the CRN Web page: http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~LOKA/crnintro.html o On Danish citizen panels, and the pilot U.S. citizen's panel initiated by the Loka Institute in April 1997, go to: http://www.amherst.edu/~loka/panel/panel.htm ***************************************************************** (6) UPDATE ON "MOURNING TECHNOLOGY REVIEW" In Loka Alert 4:6 (2 Dec. 1997), Langdon Winner and I warned of worrisome editorial policy shifts at MIT's _Technology Review_ magazine (TR). (You can read our Alert on the Web at .) Our Loka Alert inspired a follow-on national story by Steve Silberman of Wired News Service (on the Web at: ). TR's new editor-in-chief, John Benditt, has just published a response in TR's March/April issue, p. 5. Benditt assures readers we needn't worry that TR will turn away from the "human context" of innovation. I sincerely hope he's right. But his claims start to ring hollow only one paragraph later, when he promises that in the future TR will be considering "what corporations and society as a whole must do to remain successful." In the contemporary world, "success" has generally become a synonym for "profitable"--not wise, just, or humane. ###