Science, technology and our future: the big questions.

Can science be directed?

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Bill Stewart gave a historical perspective from his time as Government Chief Scientist. In his view the 1970s had been the 'dark ages' for UK science which began to be lifted through the realisation of the important potential of science for helping with many world problems and by aiming science at gaining a commercially competitive edge to business. The Technology Foresight programme gave a much better grounding for science in developing particular areas, and in the future he believed that the main mass of scientists should be given a broad direction, with only the very best scientists left to themselves. However he questioned whether ultimately our arrangements deliver value for money.

Science, technology and our future: the big questions.
Can science be directed? Martin Rees

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Martin Rees made a series of points about the relationship of science to society; that secrecy was mistaken, the need for scientists to inform the public although their views should have no special weight in the decision making, that scientists should care about what happens to the knowledge they generate. The notion of pure research is somewhat simplistic and always has been. It is right that for ethical and risk-related reasons certain areas of research should be put off-limits - and also areas where developments could allow mischievous applications too easily. He ended on a plea to reduce inequality because of the nightmarish scenarios that cheap biotechnology in the wrong hands could bring.

Science, technology and our future: the big questions.

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Vandana Shiva argued that science had always been directed through funding. Now there was a need to assess the impact of that direction because of increased commercialisation and because of the ability these developments had to impact on the public. The effect of commercialisation was to undermine the process of peer review, and independent science is becoming almost impossible. She was highly critical of the speech made by Tony Blair on science because Bangalore (from where he drew inspiration for his speech) has many protests and problems in relation to its science institutions. He was also erroneously treating science as if it were a 'mystic' that speaks, whereas it actually flows from funding decisions.

Science, technology and our future: the big questions.

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Steve Fuller made a plea for democratisation of science, particularly in the form of the consensus conference, which has now been used in many countries with good results. His view was that the public were not anti-science but were crying out for a voice in the decisions made on science and technology agendas. Democratising science would be a way of taking it back to its history the Enlightenment ideal was that all could participate in debate and decisions around scientific innovations.

Technology: taking the good without the bad?

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Brian Aldiss, science fiction author, focused on the difficulties of prediction of how new technology could impact on human emotions and relationships. Some developments like androids he could see would affect human relationships profoundly. But their development was inevitable because human curiosity would drive it.

New Scientist and Greenpeace Science Debates Science, technology and our future: the big questions

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Jon Turney examined the market pull that human desires and aspirations would give to certain developments, specifically new knowledge and technology that extended the human lifespan. Any attempt to constrain or control such technology is bound to end in failure. The best we can do is to keep a watch on developments and mitigate the bad effects as they become apparent.

Technology: taking the good without the bad?

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Robin Grove White emphasised the political context in which the new developments were taking place. If GM food was taken as an example, government and society were not at all well prepared for the spate of new technologies approaching. Chaos could ensue as the introduction of new products hit a backlash with a more sophisticated public who would not accept on trust assurances from business and government that all the relevant questions about power, control and responsibility had been addressed. Currently these legitimate concerns, because they do not fit into conventional risk assessment are labelled irrational.

Technology: taking the good without the bad?

Publication date: May 2002

Summary
Ian Pearson from BT exact explain how he was concerned that our scientific understanding was now lagging behind our ability to develop technology that could have profound effects. He pointed out that the number of technologies capable of causing human extinction was rising rapidly and would continue to do so over the next few decades. And these technologies would be cheap enough for any unhappy and suicidal teenager to work with.