Innovation, sustainability and development - a new manifesto

How can we make science and technology contribute more to sustainability and development? A bunch of researchers from the STEPS Centre, University of Sussex have taken an initiative called ‘Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto’, which “aims to challenge the mainstream models of science and technology for development that have become integral to government and international agency policy”. Central in their New Manifesto will be the following “3Ds” :

• Directionality – towards specific sustainability objectives
• Distribution – equitable distribution of costs, risks and benefits
• Diversity – in socio-technological systems

The New Manifesto was the central topic at a symposium on September 24th at the STEPS Centre. I was one of the lucky people that got an invitation and was hence able to read and discuss an early draft of the New Manifesto. Some other participants have already shared their impressions of this event in their blogs at the New Manifesto website. Here’s instead my thoughts on what should be included in the New Manifesto.

Underlying this Manifesto and the 3Ds is a rejection of an apparently persistent myth of technological determinism, discernible in policy phrases like ‘staying in the race to advance technology’. Technological change can take lots of different directions, so the Sussex people argue, and we should deliberate more and better over them as a society and then choose wisely - taking the needs of the poor more into account (see the thorough but not so easy to read background paper of Andy Stirling on the 3Ds). Here’s a quote from this paper that caught my attention: “No matter how strategically expedient or highly-charged and polarized the polemics become in areas like criminal justice, education, public health or social welfare, it would in almost any political context be regarded as quite simply indefensible to accuse critics of some particular policy as being therefore generally ‘anti-policy’. Yet in policy discourse across the world, this is effectively the norm on questions of technology choice. As we have seen, skepticism over the merits of particular innovation trajectories (like genetically modified foods, nuclear power or incineration of chemical wastes) is routinely branded – in the strongest terms and at the highest political levels – as generally ‘anti-science’, ‘anti-technology’ or ‘anti-innovation’.” As it happens, I suspect that this is exactly what most people would expect from ethicists of technology: to just say ‘NO’ to technology. Ethics as a force holding back technological progress. Not justified, I think, I will get back to that in a minute.

The rejection of another, but equally relevant myth seems to remain somewhat implicit in the preparing documents, namely that of technological instrumentalism, the idea that technology itself is value neutral and it is only the usage decisions that people make that can be called good or bad. Having realized that this thesis is not tenable, some ethicists of technology are nowadays closely scrutinizing the design of technological artifacts themselves, aiming to influence technological developments in the early design phases, where it is still possible to make a real difference on the outcomes. For example, within 3TU.Ethics ’value sensitive design‘ is a key concept. It is not just a matter of making a policy choice between solar energy and nuclear energy, but also about getting the details right within the broad technological directions that we choose - for example, different types of fuel cycles within nuclear power plants have different implications in terms of inter-generational justice (see the research project of Behnam Taebi on this topic). I think it is because of this value-ladenness of technology that the precise direction that innovation itself takes is so important (and not just the application or usage of resulting technologies). Ethicists have a positive and constructive contribution to make here, to help shape the direction of technological change.


Symposium about 1st draft of the New Manifesto, Sept. 24th 2009 in Brighton

Stirling does say, already on the second page of his background paper, that ”the most vital and neglected responsibility is to engage directly with [...] the often invisible ways in which our normative commitments construct the actual directions of progress.” To enable us to take responsibility, I would say, these invisible ways should then be made more visible. But the early draft of the Manifesto that I saw seemed to refer so often to “decisions about which technologies are to be supported” and questions on “how technology can be applied” - as if technologies are simply there to choose from and the details of their design do not need discussion. One of the preliminary recommendations is to have national fora overseeing that a better match is made between R&D resources and societal needs. But that is only scratching the surface! Even when this is done, a range of conflicting (unarticulated) values will often play a role while shaping new technologies (e.g. sustainability versus poverty reduction?). Thus, our discussions should continue at that level, so that careful value sensitive design may be able to reconcile them, or deliberate choices can be made.

To conclude: I would have liked to see more talk about moral values and their being embedded in the design of technologies themselves in their draft Manifesto. Of course, moral values and design are focal points within 3TU.Ethics, while the STEPS Centre seems to focus more on the governance of innovation processes. Insights from both fields are obviously needed to make technology contribute more to sustainability and development. Is it then only a matter of a difference in emphasis instead of a real difference in opinion?

Tip:
On November 24th there will be a Dutch round table in The Hague, one of the round tables that will be organized worldwide to get input for this New Manifesto. If you happen to be in the Netherlands that day: you are cordially invited to participate and share your opinion and experience. See elsewhere on this website for more info on the event.