Liveblog Workshop June 2012
From WtmcWiki
| Revision as of 11:44, 14 Jun 2012 WytskeVersteeg (Talk | contribs) Guest lecture by Hedwig te Molder - "Discourse communities as catalysts for science and technology communication" (blog by Wytske Versteeg) ← Go to previous diff |
Revision as of 15:17, 14 Jun 2012 217.166.158.107 (Talk | contribs) Go to next diff → |
||
| Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
| == PhD Presentations (blog by Marijke Hermans) == | == PhD Presentations (blog by Marijke Hermans) == | ||
| - | Brian Keller | + | ''Brian Keller - "Dialoguing with monsters" '' |
| - | Fabian de Kloe | + | |
| - | Sarah Heidenreich | + | Brian proposes a Dialogic Technology Assessment. His central questions are: How to evaluate new tomorrow’s technology with today’s values? Moral landscape can change. Technologies can be felt to be behind times. How to bridge the gap? How to assess technologies in the future? This is the problem of techno-moral change. Traditional Technology Assessment focuses solely on hard impacts (risks), soft impacts don’t come into discussion because they are difficult to assess. Brian wants to analyze the products of our imagination. How to step out of this problem of assessing future technologies with today’s values? Brian’s solution: utilizing the metaphor of traveling, a narrative of fiction to take a step in a morally other world in fiction; in order to centre the writer, reader and characters in another world and initiate dialogue. It is explorative. |
| + | |||
| + | It means stepping out of the circularity of traditional TA but also stepping back into the policy arena; it is speculative but can be put back in the policy arena. This arena is more suitable for applying ethics: instead of informing stakeholders in the policy arena; we step back in popular culture and film in order to imagine these future cultures and produce alternative narratives. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the analysis of literature and film, Brian looks at fictive monsters. They have special role: they are both articulating and producing, they introduce ambiguity, question abilities to understand symbolic order. Disorder, death and dirt are common themes in Brian’s research. Brian focuses on nanotechnology, in particular on artificial cells, theronostic devices and novel neurotransmitter ligands. Brian concludes by presenting his theories: possible worlds theory (estranged worlds, re-centering in possible world and discovering things from that perspective; enables possibility of dialogue between this and future world); and Monster theory (monstrous worlds; what can we learn through dialoguing with them?). Brian will also do focus group dialogues (initiate dialogue on techno-moral change) and in the end he hopes to cultivate a dialogic moral imagination. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The discussant asks ‘How do the types of monsters relate to the case of nanotechnology? It’s all related to the body? Is there a special reason? How does it help to conceptualize techno-moral change? Brian answers that it is a move from directly advising the policy making, it’s important to step back from that. Scenario’s are more about how to help them cope with future debates; controversies and pave the ground for future debate. To deal more complexly with concepts, theories and methods that are used. It offers reflection and critical appraisal; and shows gaps in knowledge. But they must be grounded in what are potential technologies; epistemologically grounded; not pure fantasy. It will help solve the problem: because speculating about the technology in policy, about consequences and solutions is not the right way to go. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why did you choose biotechnology? Brian answers that he focuses on embodiment, turned into a question of monsters, it was a choice because he needs to narrow down; and it reflected issues that are relevant; things that effect the body; very relevant to moral issues. The monsters he identified are based on movies and books that are dealing with technology. E.g. Gollum has to do with idea ‘are we trying to play God’, do we have the right, do we know what we are doing? Vampires are about life and death; the boundary. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What does the robot story about destroying the world say about our future technologies? I don’t understand the circular argument? Brian answers that the circle is referring to assessment circle: assessing future technologies with values of today; measuring stick changes; is circular argument; no way to step out of that. He seeks to map the opportunities of future world for which we have other values. We need to explore future worlds, they may indicate disturbances. But re-centering is key; you can’t just go visit and assess. Brian is not judging the process but offers a means to step out of it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question: There is a risk in what you’re doing that judging future fiction. You mix lots of temporalities; also very gendered thinking. Are you not exploiting the figure of monster? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question: you try to go into dialogue and use monsters. What if there is some mentioning of super heroes?<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ''Fabian de Kloe - "Beyond Babel: Science and International Language in the Early Twentieth Century" '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Fabian’s research is very historical. He looks at scientific internationalism: scientists peacefully transcending national boundaries. The image is positive: e.g. in EU, it’s good when science cooperates. It seems like shedding the cloak of local interests. Fabian offers a more refined image. He takes it seriously because it pops up time and time again. He shows that it has a history. He has two examples of scientists: Wilhelm Ostwald and Frederick Cottrell. Ostwald was involved in international language (ido) as a means to transcend nation states; inspired by Esperanto. He was a logician and a positivist; he believed language could be made more precise. Then you would have a perfect distillate of European languages. Ostwald and Cottrell worked together and published in a journal in this language ido. Bertrand Russel collaborated as well. But it wasn’t very popular. The general tendency was one of internationalism; now we take it for granted; but it only emerged at the beginning of 20th century. Scientists wanted to facilitate this but wanted to overcome language barriers. They wanted to speak the same language. It would relegate war to the past. The facilitator of a new and rational world. The fact that it wasn’t well received shows they had more local politics. Fabian claims that instead of it being a reaction to culture in Europe it was pushed by local politics. Couturat promotes structured objectivity as a reaction against mechanical objectivity. It is a typical belle époque debate. Politically it was a reaction against the Dreyfus affair. It divided the country (France) in patriots and scientists that were more cosmopolitan. His promotion of ido was an expression to Dreyfus affair. Ostwald on the other hand defended ido as an extension of his local politics that saw German scientists as culture bearers. Science became more fragmented, the larger questions were no longer asked of scientists. Ostwald started arguing for science involvement in society at large. By creating ido it was a distinct political move: identity of scientists. Ostwald’s promotion of ido was patriotic: he promoted an institution, ido was the language to communicate. It is very much German expansionism. Fabian’s research is relevant because it does not only say that internationalism is locally embedded. It adds on to recent literature on internationalism that we see as something good and positive. But you can see underlying motives that are quite narrow. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The discussant asks questions about politics; and about language and philosophy. ‘You don’t speak about the workers movement. Is there a connection? –around that time national languages were promoted to overrule regional languages. How does the ido project relate to that? As every logician knows, it’s just a way of reasoning, it doesn’t give answers but answers come up according to axiom. So it’s not logical that international language would promote world peace as such.’ Fabian answers that France wanted to homogenize its identity at the end of 19th century, reacted against local interests; to transcend the nation state. Scientists copied this, appropriated it and stuck on it all that was virtuous in science. They were positivists. As an historian Fabian wants to understand why they promoted it even if it is silly. Science was extension of political ideas.<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ''Sara Heidenreich - "Offshore wind researchers imaginations of the public" '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sara’s project is part of bigger project on post-fossil energies. It is about public engagement. Question is how do lay people engage with science and technology and how does science engage lay people? Today Sara talks about the science side and the idea of the imagined public. Concept of imagined lay person (Maranta et al 2003). They are the scientists’ conceptions of the public, there often is no direct contact, but scientists have images of public; can come from media; other publics etc. These imaginations influence the technology design; implementation and future discussion with public. The research question is what are the researchers imagination of the public in connection to offshore wind technology? Especially the role of public and public attitudes. Sara’s data are interviews with researchers. She also had 2 focus groups but it was not possible to find more than 2 focus groups, but that is not enough to get clear data. The data analysis is inspired by grounded theory with atlas.ti. But Sara is critical about that because it takes bits of interviews and puts them out of context but she wanted to look at interview as a whole; as a narrative; what story are researchers are making. But the problem always is that you are creating the narrative yourself. Sara presents some stories of public from scientists. There is a dominant narrative that the public is very absent when scientists talk about implementation of technology. They don’t mention them if Sara doesn’t ask. When she asks the answer is that the turbines are going to be far away, out of sight out of mind. Siting turbines off shore is going to solve lots of public problems there are with siting on shore. This goes together with understanding of their own role as no need to engage with public debate. They don’t see it as their role, say ‘you as a social scientist or politics should do that’; or they say ‘it should be good to engage’ or ‘it is very difficult’. They are ambiguous about their role. If Sara looks at the literature that looks at wind energy in other countries, they found that there is expectation of public hostility, and NIMBY (not in my backyard). Sara found in 3 interviews that public is imagined as negative: people are skeptical, negative to wind turbines; and NIMBY. Only minor view. The next are stories about public as positive. Two different things: one is people are relaxed about it; or people are enthusiastic. Because it is green, creates job, it’s off shore. However, the story she encountered mostly is ambivalent story about negative and positive. Back and forth argument. So in general the public doesn’t play a big role in development of wind energy. They think people are positive when it’s out of sight and out of mind; but there is some fear. There is a NIMBY ghost that is present. It would be interesting to find out why these fears remain in the research environment. How does it influence the implementation? How does it influence dialogues with public? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The discussant asks ‘There are different groups of scientists. Who were the ones in your focus group? You found out that scientists didn’t view the public as important but maybe they are present because scientists are afraid of NIMBY reactions.’ Sara answers that it would be interesting to look at policy makers ideas of the public; but she focuses more on the technology design and public dialogue. When scientists think of implementation they don’t have public in mind. It’s not really something which is very worrisome but small thing which is there. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question: ‘Where are the researchers performing their imaginations of the public?’ | ||
| + | |||
| == Guest lecture by Erwin van Rijswoud - "Expert communication in the boundary zone of science, policy and public debate" (blog by Andreas Mitzschke) == | == Guest lecture by Erwin van Rijswoud - "Expert communication in the boundary zone of science, policy and public debate" (blog by Andreas Mitzschke) == | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 14 Jun 2012
Wednesday
Opening and introduction
Maud Radstake introduces the topic of the workshop. Subject is "science in society", science as it enters the public domain. This fits with recent concerns expressed over the authority of science (i.e. climate change, vaccination) and the relevance / value of science. It raises the question how the public does and should relate to science and vice versa. This is also a theme in STS research, looking for example at how publics mobilize around issues or the role of science in democracy and its relation with citizenship.
The workshop will discuss perceptions of, and relations between, citizens and scientists. A basic question that will return: What do 'we' mean by science, public, citizens? And reflexively: How to practice what we preach, as researchers ourselves?
After a brief introduction round, questions of the participants were collected.
It resulted in a mix of practical (i.e. how-to communicate), conceptual (i.e. what is 'science'? how to distinguish different types of knowledge?) and reflexive (i.e. what is the problem here and whose problem is it?) questions.
Guest lecture by Robert Zwijnenberg - "BioArt: Contemporary art & the life sciences" (blog by Bart van Oost)
Robert introduces his talk on the role of the arts in the public debate. He will discuss how art can shape citizenship in relation to the life sciences.
His talk has four starting points:
1. The life sciences are needed
2. Dilemma arising from the clash between scientific integrity and societal anxiety.
3. The rift between the sciences and society is real and urgent
4. Arts can help t shape modern society by encouraging the ability to debate.
The focus is on artists who go into the labs of life sciences and work with living materials.
Importantly, such engaged works may help to i) thematize the ethical, political and cultural implications of life science, ii) disclose what is happening in the life sciences and iii) raise awareness about the commodification of living material via life sciences.
An example is Adam Zaretsky, a bio-artist who worked with pheasant embryos. The latter work may trigger moral responses, but is still within the legal limits (by which 'life' is defined as something which can reproduce and sustain itself). Responses of students working on this project indicate that there may be difference between the ethics of the life science and ethics that we use in our daily lives (Zaretsky, 2009).
Another example is the GFP Bunny project by Eduardo Kac. This is about the relocation of a technological product (the rabbit) into the public domain, as almost all innovation develop into household applications. This raises the question of who is responsible for what happens in the life sciences. Kac' contested art-work aims to inject ambiguity into the public debate.
Robert continues by discussing the 'Tissue Culture & Art Project' which runs in cooperation with biotechnology scientists. Artist organized a disembodied cuisine by taking, growing and preparing tissue from a living frog. It may trigger enthusiastic reactions about the possibility of serving 'vegetarian meat'. But the artists pointed to a risk as well: a new class of objects/being was created, the Semi-Living, which was immediately exploited for eating purposes. The artwork raises questions about this dynamic.
The last example that Robert presents is 'Bio Jewellery'. Wisdom teeth are technologically transformed into rings that partners can exchange. Again, a common practice in biomedical technology (tissue engineering) is relocated into the public domain and applied to particular social practices and cultural customs. As a result, the debate on responsibility is recast and potentially revived (for example when it comes to legal ownership on extracted body parts).
In reflection, Robert argues that an important aspect of bio-art has to do with the commodification of life, referring to the transformation of living things into marketable materials (see also Koepsel 2009; Dickinson 2009). Think also of the debate on GM seeds and 'designer babies', linking to questions like: who owns life?
Robert concludes with the issue of why is art needed for critical debate about the life sciences. What can art really add? The work of Adam Zaretsky ('Initial Attempts at Embryonic Transplant Surgery') may be illustrative, where the artist tried to manipulate a zebrafish embryo. The project is within legal limits and is about a quest for new ethics and aesthetics for biotechnology. Zaretsky stresses the importance of mimicking/mastering, comprehending and participating within the scientific practices if one wants to become a transformative force within the scientific network. Robert stresses that this involved attitude gives bio-art an important role in the public debate. Direct involvement allows for a hands-on form of bio-ethics.
Q:
Role of bio-arts, you focused on ethics and aesthetics and argued that it creates understanding. To what extent does it create acceptance andis it a form of PR?
In addition, I'm missing the political aspect (Agamben - Bare life) in your talk. By presenting bio-art in the way that you did, you may loose sight of the political edge to life sciences.
A: Critique on bio-art is that they are repeating was it already happening in the lab. I agree, but they also re-contextualize. You can hardly say that Zaretsky is against the biomedical practice, because he practices it himself. It is more about trying to expose the hidden agenda, dreams, expectations, fears that underpin the practice of the life sciences.
About the politics: I think that is what all the projects are about. The artist, working mostly on the internet, are all politically engaged, but they do not want to take a specific position. Rather, their aim is to inject ambiguity into the public debate. In that sense it is very much politically charged.
Q:
You claim that this form of art demystifies science. could you substantiate this? I would argue the opposite, as it reinforces the scientific authority in these kind of fields.
A:
Criticism has been voiced before and sometimes even by myself with regard to certain projects. There is a 'fetishm' involved in working with the material. And the artists are sometimes mystifying themselves too (e.g the debate over the existince of Kac' bunny). But still think that bringing this science in different domains demystifies science as it re-appropriates the ownership question with artists claiming the write to work with living materials too.
Q:
Often, bio-art is primarily a response on art itself. It often involves in-crowd responses and jokes. If you state that arts can change social life, I wonder: how? Are we in daily life confronted with this? It seems to evolve around small 'geeky' communities.
Another question about methods:
You said that bio-art stands out for its participatory approach. But that's not new. So could you explain again what is special about it?
A:
There are indeed trends within bio-arts and the target group of it is very limited.
That's also why I took bio-art into the classroom. I think that hands-on engagement of bio-art is important, as it the way that they re-appropriate scientific practices in their art practices. Students will be the policy-makers of the future, so you can introduce it within the context of the university even though the general exposure is limited.
Q:
You said at the beginning that art can encourage critical debate and that it should be a transformative force. Isn't that a bit circular? You also mentioned ambiguity. But what is the ambiguity in the rabbit case (Kac)?
To pick up on this example:
It seems that not the bunny is at the centre of attention, but rather the artist and his feelings. Is that what bio-arts should be about?
A:
The article argues that art should be about communication and about relations between different groups of people. I think Kac achieved that, in the sense that it triggered a huge public debate on GM animals and on the role and function of arts.
Q:
I argue that we talked 'semi-ethics', because you seem to touch upon ethics but keep it at bay by saying that it was legal. I think that ethics are very much involved: If the artist in the case of pheasant embryos would consciously think that it is wrong what he/she is doing, he/she couldn't repeat it.
A:
I emphasized the legality, because as an biotechnology scientist it seems like you don't have to think about ethics because there in 'Ethical Committee', while we as outsiders immediately experience some ethical hesitations about whether we're allowed to this. The fact that the artist is repeating this question is important: you can legally do this, but have ethical hesitations about it. Some students for example refuse to participate because they are vegetarians. But those that participate somehow go along with the procedures, after getting their white coats on.
Q:
Part of the function is making bio-technology public. Who is the target group in your view?
A:
Why I'm so involved in this bio-art practice, is that I feel that the humanities are lacking behind the development of and implications of the life sciences. We, philosophers and ethicists, reflect at the end of the pipeline. Bio-artists are involved from the beginning of the developments. They provide me with an entrance to this complex biotechnological practice by pointing to the ethical and aesthetic issues involved.
Q:
Saying that artists are 'inside' the science, but they are also 'outside' being artist. So science-art hybrid, exploring the boundaries. I imagine that some problems arise regarding boundary work. Could this be harmful for the credibility of science too and for the democratization of science?
A:
Life scientists are just like normal human beings worried about what happens in the world and acknowledge that it is important to bridge the rift between science and the public. So I recognize the fear of scientists (some of which have accused me of 'nihilstic Spielerei'), but their willingness to cooperate is an indication that they are open to it.
Q:
Demystification of science.
Artists are taking the methods of the 'hard' sciences out in the public and are reviewing ethical issues by re-contextualization. I'm wondering: Is it not relocalizing the mystification (as now the artist knows about the work that is involved in scientific practices, but the public looking at the art work still does not know).
A:
I kind of agree with that. There is a form of mystification present in these art works and the fact that they are presented as art, as something different. But this underlines that science is culture and that we need various entrances to understand the sciences. The works that I like most of those where the beholders are involved as participants.
Q:
Want to return to the issue of: What is new about bio-technology? We raise ethical issues because we think that there is something new on stage. But for me the important issue is how this makes is think about the body, which goes back to Roman times and beyond. So why not take a step back and first ask this more conceptual question about 'what is the body'. Think of the frog and the dis-embodied cuisines; why is this dis-embodied?
A:
Agree that the issue of bio-technology is really about 'what is nature'? We have always been breeding animals and changing our body. But I think that the current technological possibilities can lead to much more radical changes than ever before. And that a lot of these artworks are dealing with this issue.
Q:
You told us about bio-art project. Did you ever do such projects with scientists themselves or politicians? And did it change their ways of behaving in labs or in politics? Could it also be used to educate scientists instead of the broader public?
A:
Life science students and scientists are involved as well. I've been doing it in Leiden for six years and it seems that some scientists are now convinced that it is important to involve arts in their projects.
Q:
The ethical practices that I know (i.e. Ethical Committees or Ethical Rules) seem to be geared towards resolving ambiguity. Arts seems to do the opposite. Isn't there a tension between art and ethics in that respect?
A:
Yes, but seems productive to me.
PhD presentations (blog by Marcello Aspria)
Lucie Dalibert Marlous Arenthorst Wytske Versteeg
Thursday
Guest lecture by Hedwig te Molder - "Discourse communities as catalysts for science and technology communication" (blog by Wytske Versteeg)
Hedwig teMolder: Discourse communities as catalysts for science and technology communication
teMolder does not focus on mass communication as many groups in the Netherlands do, but rather on interpersonal communication in actual, everyday talk.
The role of science has changed. The notions of mode-2 science, the triple helix post-normal science are different approaches but they also agree on one thing: science and technology are communicated and debated no longer in the ivory tower, but in the agora - not merely by scientific peers, but also by industry, publics, interest groups, government agencies et cetera - and this debate emerges often at unexpected moments. The distinction between science and non-science has become blurred, as has the distinction between the public and the private domain. The expert has become accountable to different groups for what he does or produces in many different ways and at unexpected moments.
Despite these changes in the environment, science communication has only adapted to a certain extent. But the consequences for science communication are far reaching: science communication is potentially everywhere, since the rights to speak have become distributed and globalized. Science communication is no longer organized from a central point or perspective, if it ever has been. Science communicators are no longer the alfa and omega of science communication, and this leads to a high level of unpredictabiltiy: it is unsure when and how the debate will start.
Whereas communication has moved from deficit to dialogue to participation, the assumption is still that there is a need or desire to be informed or to participate. Nowoty: ‘society talks back’. But this is not the complete picture, since society is already talking and it is often the expert who needs to talk back. The talk in these self-organizing discourse communities is not necessarily in the first instance oriented to technology, so an inversion of perspective is needed.
So how do they talk? A discourse community ‘model’. Discourse communities are groups of actors talking science and tehcnology, either directly or areas of everyday life that they apply to. The focus is on ‘natural talk’, that would also take place without the researcher being present, although ‘natural’ is a matter of debate. A central question is what interactional business is being performed by the interactants, either consciously or unconsciously. It is crucial to assess utterances in the interactional context in which they are done, and that they establish at the same time: talk is studied in its own right. Interactional business is not only about what people say, but also what they achieve by saying this at this particular moment, as understood through the eyes of the discussion partner. The shift is from a cognitive to a discursive model: rather than assuming that language reflects what people really do or thing (representation), discursive pscyhology assers that language is used for action, is a tool that can be drawn upon for a range of social-interactional goals. The crucial question is how the receiving person takes up or treats the language action from the previous speaker. Something that might look as merely a description can be treated by other speakers as an accusation (‘there is a pile of dishes’).
Case 1: The celiac pill
Case material: the threads about a future pill on a online discussion forum for celiac (gluten intolerance) patients (in total 152 posts). Research was part of a consortium and aimed to give a patient’s perspective. Question: why is the celiac pill (at that moment: in the making) not received as enthusiastically as the experts expected it to be, and sometimes even negatively?
Observation: the pill was received very differently, sometimes by the same people, depending on the way it was introduced. So: something happens in the interaction, but what exactly in the introduction triggers this? Italicized are inbuilt expert assumptions that are unpacked and resisted by patients: how much would you be willing to pay each day if you could take a pill that would let you eat a normal diet? Celiac patients resist the right of the expert to suggest that hteir pill will be accepted anyway, to replace an ‘abnormal’ diet and that it would fully repair their troublesome life. They react to the presentation of the pill as a panacea for a problematic life, denying the patient’s right to choose.
Questions/discussion:
- Q: Is the emphasis indeed on the troublesome life, or does the poster (I wouldn’t give one red cent) react to the potentially exploitative nature of the question (how much would you be willing to pay?)
Q: What is the limit of this method (the dichotomy of epistemic versus function doesn’t apply everywhere)? Are there subject matters for which the method is not suited? Language is used to achieve something and epistemics can’t be separated from function - many traditions propose that context is crucial, but at they same time they often fail to take context seriously. Discursive psychology does take context seriously; it is not important whether what is said is right or wrong, but how the other interactants treat this - as an analyst, you’re not the ultimate assessor. Of course there are limitatons; the method does not aim to enable the analyst to make a distinction between right or wrong utterances.
Q: This example came from internet. How do you deal with the differences in different contexts such as face-to-face, internet, etc.? Important question, and one which analysts are struggling with. For instance, the failure to respond has a different meaning in face-to-face interactions than online.
Q:If context is an important thing, we have to talk about mediation as well: a forum has a particular kind of interface, rules, et cetera. To which extent does this mediation play a role in the analysis? Also an important question, that cannot be solved completely. But again, the entrance is to search for the way the other interactants treat the utterances and (fail to) make the context relevant, for instance by comparing different threads. In doing this, it often emerges that something that could have been attributed to characteristics of the medium, is in fact a result of the interaction (in the medium), but not of the medium as such.
Q: Why is the method called discursive psychology instead of plain discourse analys? It started from discourse analysis (Gilbert/Mulkay): how did scientists account for their own work in different contexts? But there are many branches of discourse analysis with a lot of different assumptions: therefore, a different name was chosen: discursive psychology. Psychology is used here in a different way than usual; the question is not ‘is this intention’ or not, but to study ‘intention’ through the eyes of the interactants. Psychology is not so much the analyst’s topic, but rather a topic of negotiation between the interactants among themselves.
Lecture part 2
Hard and soft impacts. Experts tend to make themselves accountable for at least discussing the topics that are treated as ‘hard impacts’ (health, safety, environment), but not for ‘soft impacts’ (political, cultural, moral). The latter disappear from the debate, or the agenda, even though they tend to be highly relevant for citizens, consumers.
Case 2: Naturalness
Organized discussion between 20 expert participants. The topic of interest: who is accountable for knowing what (whose epistemic territory)? What is being achieved by distributing rights and responsibilities in this way (action)? Responsibility: there is a difference between asserting that ‘this food is good’ or ‘I find this good food’ - by saying something, you make yourself responsible for the knowledge. In turn, other participants can make you accountable to do something as a consequence of this knowledge.
What does the expert claim to know about naturalness? Does he know what it is? Does he know better or less than the consumer? What effect is being achieved by talking in this way about naturalness? For which actions does he make himself responsible? Does he initiate the debate on naturalness?
Expert claims superior epistemic access to ‘naturalness’ without disclosing that definition; he does not further explore this.
Question: are you not still claiming to have access to a hidden meaning that the speaker himself isn’t aware of, despite the DP claim to the contrary? A: Good point in the case of a rhetorical analysis of a monologue. Preferably, you would analyze the response to see how the utterance is treated by others, and that would be a more accurate base for the analysis.
PhD Presentations (blog by Marijke Hermans)
Brian Keller - "Dialoguing with monsters"
Brian proposes a Dialogic Technology Assessment. His central questions are: How to evaluate new tomorrow’s technology with today’s values? Moral landscape can change. Technologies can be felt to be behind times. How to bridge the gap? How to assess technologies in the future? This is the problem of techno-moral change. Traditional Technology Assessment focuses solely on hard impacts (risks), soft impacts don’t come into discussion because they are difficult to assess. Brian wants to analyze the products of our imagination. How to step out of this problem of assessing future technologies with today’s values? Brian’s solution: utilizing the metaphor of traveling, a narrative of fiction to take a step in a morally other world in fiction; in order to centre the writer, reader and characters in another world and initiate dialogue. It is explorative.
It means stepping out of the circularity of traditional TA but also stepping back into the policy arena; it is speculative but can be put back in the policy arena. This arena is more suitable for applying ethics: instead of informing stakeholders in the policy arena; we step back in popular culture and film in order to imagine these future cultures and produce alternative narratives.
In the analysis of literature and film, Brian looks at fictive monsters. They have special role: they are both articulating and producing, they introduce ambiguity, question abilities to understand symbolic order. Disorder, death and dirt are common themes in Brian’s research. Brian focuses on nanotechnology, in particular on artificial cells, theronostic devices and novel neurotransmitter ligands. Brian concludes by presenting his theories: possible worlds theory (estranged worlds, re-centering in possible world and discovering things from that perspective; enables possibility of dialogue between this and future world); and Monster theory (monstrous worlds; what can we learn through dialoguing with them?). Brian will also do focus group dialogues (initiate dialogue on techno-moral change) and in the end he hopes to cultivate a dialogic moral imagination.
The discussant asks ‘How do the types of monsters relate to the case of nanotechnology? It’s all related to the body? Is there a special reason? How does it help to conceptualize techno-moral change? Brian answers that it is a move from directly advising the policy making, it’s important to step back from that. Scenario’s are more about how to help them cope with future debates; controversies and pave the ground for future debate. To deal more complexly with concepts, theories and methods that are used. It offers reflection and critical appraisal; and shows gaps in knowledge. But they must be grounded in what are potential technologies; epistemologically grounded; not pure fantasy. It will help solve the problem: because speculating about the technology in policy, about consequences and solutions is not the right way to go.
Why did you choose biotechnology? Brian answers that he focuses on embodiment, turned into a question of monsters, it was a choice because he needs to narrow down; and it reflected issues that are relevant; things that effect the body; very relevant to moral issues. The monsters he identified are based on movies and books that are dealing with technology. E.g. Gollum has to do with idea ‘are we trying to play God’, do we have the right, do we know what we are doing? Vampires are about life and death; the boundary.
What does the robot story about destroying the world say about our future technologies? I don’t understand the circular argument? Brian answers that the circle is referring to assessment circle: assessing future technologies with values of today; measuring stick changes; is circular argument; no way to step out of that. He seeks to map the opportunities of future world for which we have other values. We need to explore future worlds, they may indicate disturbances. But re-centering is key; you can’t just go visit and assess. Brian is not judging the process but offers a means to step out of it.
Question: There is a risk in what you’re doing that judging future fiction. You mix lots of temporalities; also very gendered thinking. Are you not exploiting the figure of monster?
Question: you try to go into dialogue and use monsters. What if there is some mentioning of super heroes?
Fabian de Kloe - "Beyond Babel: Science and International Language in the Early Twentieth Century"
Fabian’s research is very historical. He looks at scientific internationalism: scientists peacefully transcending national boundaries. The image is positive: e.g. in EU, it’s good when science cooperates. It seems like shedding the cloak of local interests. Fabian offers a more refined image. He takes it seriously because it pops up time and time again. He shows that it has a history. He has two examples of scientists: Wilhelm Ostwald and Frederick Cottrell. Ostwald was involved in international language (ido) as a means to transcend nation states; inspired by Esperanto. He was a logician and a positivist; he believed language could be made more precise. Then you would have a perfect distillate of European languages. Ostwald and Cottrell worked together and published in a journal in this language ido. Bertrand Russel collaborated as well. But it wasn’t very popular. The general tendency was one of internationalism; now we take it for granted; but it only emerged at the beginning of 20th century. Scientists wanted to facilitate this but wanted to overcome language barriers. They wanted to speak the same language. It would relegate war to the past. The facilitator of a new and rational world. The fact that it wasn’t well received shows they had more local politics. Fabian claims that instead of it being a reaction to culture in Europe it was pushed by local politics. Couturat promotes structured objectivity as a reaction against mechanical objectivity. It is a typical belle époque debate. Politically it was a reaction against the Dreyfus affair. It divided the country (France) in patriots and scientists that were more cosmopolitan. His promotion of ido was an expression to Dreyfus affair. Ostwald on the other hand defended ido as an extension of his local politics that saw German scientists as culture bearers. Science became more fragmented, the larger questions were no longer asked of scientists. Ostwald started arguing for science involvement in society at large. By creating ido it was a distinct political move: identity of scientists. Ostwald’s promotion of ido was patriotic: he promoted an institution, ido was the language to communicate. It is very much German expansionism. Fabian’s research is relevant because it does not only say that internationalism is locally embedded. It adds on to recent literature on internationalism that we see as something good and positive. But you can see underlying motives that are quite narrow.
The discussant asks questions about politics; and about language and philosophy. ‘You don’t speak about the workers movement. Is there a connection? –around that time national languages were promoted to overrule regional languages. How does the ido project relate to that? As every logician knows, it’s just a way of reasoning, it doesn’t give answers but answers come up according to axiom. So it’s not logical that international language would promote world peace as such.’ Fabian answers that France wanted to homogenize its identity at the end of 19th century, reacted against local interests; to transcend the nation state. Scientists copied this, appropriated it and stuck on it all that was virtuous in science. They were positivists. As an historian Fabian wants to understand why they promoted it even if it is silly. Science was extension of political ideas.
Sara Heidenreich - "Offshore wind researchers imaginations of the public"
Sara’s project is part of bigger project on post-fossil energies. It is about public engagement. Question is how do lay people engage with science and technology and how does science engage lay people? Today Sara talks about the science side and the idea of the imagined public. Concept of imagined lay person (Maranta et al 2003). They are the scientists’ conceptions of the public, there often is no direct contact, but scientists have images of public; can come from media; other publics etc. These imaginations influence the technology design; implementation and future discussion with public. The research question is what are the researchers imagination of the public in connection to offshore wind technology? Especially the role of public and public attitudes. Sara’s data are interviews with researchers. She also had 2 focus groups but it was not possible to find more than 2 focus groups, but that is not enough to get clear data. The data analysis is inspired by grounded theory with atlas.ti. But Sara is critical about that because it takes bits of interviews and puts them out of context but she wanted to look at interview as a whole; as a narrative; what story are researchers are making. But the problem always is that you are creating the narrative yourself. Sara presents some stories of public from scientists. There is a dominant narrative that the public is very absent when scientists talk about implementation of technology. They don’t mention them if Sara doesn’t ask. When she asks the answer is that the turbines are going to be far away, out of sight out of mind. Siting turbines off shore is going to solve lots of public problems there are with siting on shore. This goes together with understanding of their own role as no need to engage with public debate. They don’t see it as their role, say ‘you as a social scientist or politics should do that’; or they say ‘it should be good to engage’ or ‘it is very difficult’. They are ambiguous about their role. If Sara looks at the literature that looks at wind energy in other countries, they found that there is expectation of public hostility, and NIMBY (not in my backyard). Sara found in 3 interviews that public is imagined as negative: people are skeptical, negative to wind turbines; and NIMBY. Only minor view. The next are stories about public as positive. Two different things: one is people are relaxed about it; or people are enthusiastic. Because it is green, creates job, it’s off shore. However, the story she encountered mostly is ambivalent story about negative and positive. Back and forth argument. So in general the public doesn’t play a big role in development of wind energy. They think people are positive when it’s out of sight and out of mind; but there is some fear. There is a NIMBY ghost that is present. It would be interesting to find out why these fears remain in the research environment. How does it influence the implementation? How does it influence dialogues with public?
The discussant asks ‘There are different groups of scientists. Who were the ones in your focus group? You found out that scientists didn’t view the public as important but maybe they are present because scientists are afraid of NIMBY reactions.’ Sara answers that it would be interesting to look at policy makers ideas of the public; but she focuses more on the technology design and public dialogue. When scientists think of implementation they don’t have public in mind. It’s not really something which is very worrisome but small thing which is there.
Question: ‘Where are the researchers performing their imaginations of the public?’
