Module 2
TOPIC/THEME: Science, technology and the human person and communities: impacts of science and technology to the human personhood, social institutions and practices and power relations
KEY CONCEPT POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING:
- Power and power relations in society
- Power could be defined as the capacity to do something. A person has power when s/he can achieve something, and that something could either be bad or good, right or wrong. All persons have potential power, in that all have the capacity to do/achieve something.
- A person can convert potential power into actual power, and this is a function of the context within which such person exists.
- Such context could be characterized by variables within which the person is differentiated and acquires his/her identity. Some of these variables are those in which the person is born into (ascribe), and others are those in which the person become through social processes of learning and achieving (acquired). These variables influence people’s capacity to convert potential power into actual power, and become basis for the emergence of power differentials.
- Class, gender and ethnicity/race are some of these variables. Rich people have more power than the poor; men may posses more power than women; and dominant racial/ethnic groups may posses more power than those who are in the minority.
- People are born to become part of a community and a larger society. Groups exist within these communities and societies. Each group possesses a set of characteristics and interests which are common to each member, but are distinct from other groups. Like individuals, a particular group also possesses power, which is expressed as its capacity to do something. Such power emanates from the nature of its members.
- Individuals and groups in a community or society interact with each other through a complex and intricate web of social ad power relations. Here, it is always possible that conflict emerge since common grounds are contested. These could come in the form of conflicts emanating from certain forms of entitlements over which individuals and groups compete—such as access to benefits, resources, and privileges. In such situation, some individuals and groups eventually become “winners” and some become “losers.” However, the situation may not always be a zero sum condition wherein conflict producers only “winners” and “losers.” Other individuals and groups may not even be directly involved in the conflict, while others could become free riders, or become passive spectators waiting for collateral benefits that may accrue them.
- Approaches to the Analysis of Power
- Reputational Approach in assessing who has power in a community—basing assessment on the reputation of the group, as perceived
- This is a helpful tool, but there is a limitation in the sense that what you perceive to be the reputation of the group may simply be just a façade.
- Real power may not be actually possessed by such a group in terms of their actual ability to achieve certain goals.
- Reputation could be an externally projected image that may evoke power, but may not necessarily be a reliable determinant of who has actual capacity and influence.
- Decisional Approach
§ In a situation when different groups and individuals interact, there is always the possibility that common grounds are being contested.
§ These usually come in the form of entitlements to which individuals and groups compete—access to benefits and resources, access to privilege.
§ Conflict may eventually ensue.
· In this context, power is analyzed as manifested in relations between A and B vis-à-vis a conflicting situation emanating from competition over entitlements.
· Power in this approach is analyzed vis-à-vis actors with different preferences.
· Unlike the reputational approach, the identification of those who have power can be done by analyzing the conflicts that emerge, the parties involved, and the outcome of such conflict.
§ Distribution of Power
o Pluralist—when power is relatively dispersed within the community or social collective
o Elitist—when power is relatively concentrated to a few elite groups within the community or social collective
- Dimensions of power
- First Dimension
- The most visible manifestation of power occurs when A is able to make B do things that B would not otherwise do. Robert Dahl defined power in this way, wherein the focus is on the outcome of overt conflicts, seen in the winners and losers, and the ability of one to influence the outcomes.
- The assumption in this dimension of power is that overt conflict is resolved through a decision making process.
- Second Dimension
- Another dimension of power is seen in situations when A is capable of influencing the process in a manner wherein conflict may not even exist. This is attained by creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices which limit the scope of contested issues to those which are safe to A’s interests. This effectively prevents B from contesting the claim of A to such entitlement.
- In this dimension of power, A mobilizes structural biases to confine the decision making process to issues in which A holds an advantage, or are advantageous to his/her interests. In this context, B is still aware of his/her interests contrary to A’s, but is prevented from articulating it, or is denied a forum to express it, thereby shutting it out from the decision making process.
- In both the first and second dimensions of power, conflict still exists. However, in the first dimension, conflict is overt and evident, while in the second, it is covert considering the fact that despite its existence, it is prevented from entering the public agenda for decision-making.
- Third Dimension
- A third dimension of power exists when A is able to influence the way B thinks so that the latter no longer consider his/her interests as in conflict with A’s. Here, B’s consciousness is manipulated in a manner contrary to his/her real interests, of which s/he may no longer be aware of.
- This dimension of power produces a form of latent conflict, wherein there exists a possible conflict wants or preferences between A and B if B was aware of its interests.
- This third dimension of power operates through ideology, and the ideological institutions that attend to it. Ideology is the collection of belief systems that justifies the existence of a certain social arrangement or action. A dominant ideology justifies the present prevailing system, while a counter-ideology justifies the challenges to the prevailing system. Ideologies are manifested in the operations of ideological institutions which shape people’s consciousness. Religion, which is a powerful institution that conditions people’s way of thinking about things, is one of these institutions. Religion can influence people to accept things as they are, in which case they act as a venue for the operation of dominant ideologies to operate. The natural power of religion lies in its capacity to preach humility, acceptance of fate, forgiveness, poverty as a virtue, and the privileging to the male. This serves as a strong influence on people to accept their fate as God-ordained. However, religion could also serve counter-ideological functions, in as much as it could also become a bearer of challenges against the present state of affairs.
- There are certain methods for analyzing power relations within households, as well as in communities, such as
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Access and control profiling
The details of how these are done are given in
| Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders refer to individuals, groups or organizations with an interest in a given action or situation. There are three types of stakeholders: · Primary stakeholders—there are the direct impact recipients, either as direct beneficiaries, or those who will directly bear the costs of negative impacts · Secondary stakeholders—there are third party mediators, and are usually not based in the locality where the action or situation occurs · Key stakeholders—there are either primary or secondary stakeholders whose involvement is significant Key stakeholders could be analyzed for their relative power and social influence. The following are the key steps for using stakeholder analysis in analyzing power: · Identify the stakeholders · For each stakeholder, specify their specific interest in the action or situation · Identify the primary, secondary and key stakeholders · For the key stakeholders, conduct an access and control profiling (discussed below) o Stakeholders are most powerful if they have access to and control over resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making o Stakeholders are less powerful if they only have access to but no control over resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making o Stakeholders are least powerful if they do not even have access to resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making · Another method of stakeholder analysis that could facilitate the analysis of power is through conflict analysis. Stakeholders are most powerful if they are able to determine the mechanisms for conflict resolution and/or if they benefit from the resolution. o Identify key conflicts that occur o Identify the stakeholders that are involved in the conflict o Identify how the conflict was resolved o Identify from among the stakeholders the following: § Who determined the means for conflict resolution? § Who benefited from the resolution? Who did not? |
| Access and Control Profiling This is done both at the household and the community levels of analysis. There are three types of profiles: a) resource access and control, b) decision making profiles, and c) benefits and burdens.
Resource Access and Control Profile Template
Legend: A = access; C = control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision Making Profile Template
Legend: A = access; C = control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Benefits and Burdens Profile Template
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Science, technology and power relations
- A can use science and technology as resources to make B do things against B’s interests. A’s control of technology could enable A to influence the policy agenda through the first dimension of power.
- In the context of the second dimension of power, A’s control of technology can enable A to manipulate processes or to prevent others from participating in such processes. Examples of this include the use of sophisticated technologies which would effectively bar the participation of other parties who are not used to or familiar with the technology (e.g. computerization which would bar those who do not have computers or are not computer literate), or could prevent others to access vital information which they would need.
- Through the third dimension of power, science and technology can also enable A to manipulate the consciousness of some people through ideological mechanisms. This would influence them to accept the present power arrangements as unproblematic, even if such are against their real interests. Examples of these include technologies of mass communication are also examples of this.
- The following box (
| Science, technology and class relations One of the most fundamental power relations in society exists across classes. What are social classes? There are two ways to interpret classes. One is to see them in terms of social positions vis-à-vis wealth. Thus we speak of income classes. A variation of this is to see them in terms of power positions in society—that is, as elites and non-elites. Another way of interpreting social classes is to see them in the context of their role in the mode of production, particularly in terms of their position vis-à-vis the productive process. For example, in capitalism, there are two fundamental classes—the capitalist class and the working class. How do we see science and technology in the context of class relations? Definitely, and as applied in both definitions of classes, science and technology are resources that are usually in the hands of the elites or those who control the production process (that is, the capitalists). In fact, the class position of the capitalist is achieved through the ownership of the means of production, which include technology. The development of capitalism, as a mode of production, depended on technology. And it can now be said that the development of capitalism was not without its victims. Critical theorists such as Horkheimer and Adorno have argued that science and scientific knowledge eventually became part of the system of domination that is inherent in capitalist systems. Science became formal, conformist and instrumental in its support of the interest of the present system, thereby losing its potential for critic and for fostering alternative ideas. Lukacs, another critical theorist, explains this by saying that science is an important ingredient for capitalist development, in that its main ethic is consistent with the requirements of capitalist for control and rationality. Capitalism was launched through the exploitation of natural resources and, in some cases, through forced occupation of territories and relocation of peoples, particularly those living in regions needed for their resources. These processes have had severe social consequences on the class relations between elites and non-elites, with the former benefiting from the process even as the latter became victims unable fully enjoy the benefits of industrialization. For example, the developments in agricultural technologies (such as machines, chemicals, and biotechnology) led to the growth of agribusiness enterprises and enhanced the production of capital. However, these same developments further drove a wedge between the rich and the poor in the rural areas. Agricultural mechanization and the use of chemicals have only created burdens to poor farmers who cannot afford the costly technologies. |
| In the development of bureaucratic organizations, the use of the scientific management principle espoused by One of the impacts of technological development on class relations is what Marx termed “alienation” of the working class. This emanates from the loss of control by the working class of the technologies of production. The industrialization process, coupled with science, has considered labor as simply an object and the worker as a factor of production in addition to land and capital. The mechanization of work brought about by developments in machines as well as in information technology has also had adverse impacts. These include reduction in the natural skills of the labor force, and the emergence of technological unemployment wherein workers are displaced by machines. Furthermore, while the use of machines has increased the productivity necessary to foster capitalist development, it also greatly reduced the level and quality of social interactions among workers in the workplace. Work has become a mechanized, impersonal process. However, it should also be mentioned that scientific knowledge and technological advances have also created developments that have improved the welfare of workers. The development of technologies in the workplace has created new methods that have reduced the stress that comes with work. Office equipment and gadgets and developments in information technology such as the Internet and e-mail have brought convenience to workers. In terms of benefits, science and technology have improved the production process and the work environment, increasing the efficiency of the worker and reducing stress in the work environment. In terms of the negative impacts, the following can be said: • Agricultural technologies widened the gap between the poor farmers and the rich. • The worker was “alienated” as a result of loss of control technology, which is now in the hands of the technocratic elites. • Technological unemployment brought about by the displacement of manual labor by mechanical labor. • Alteration of the social nature of work and its transformation into an impersonal, mechanical process. |
| Science, technology and gender relations We now turn to the next domain of power differentiation—that of gender. Gender relations refer to the relationships between men and women in society. What is the role of science and technology in gender relations? Has science and technology brought equality between men and women? Surely, science and technology have in some ways fostered gender equality and promoted the welfare of women. For example, advances in medical science, particularly in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, have greatly reduced the cases of maternal mortality during pregnancy and childbirth. Medical advances have also increased the capacity of couples, particularly women, to have control over the timing, frequency and possibility of pregnancy. These medical advances include in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, as well as birth control technologies, in both their natural as well as artificial variants. There are also technological developments that have fostered equality in the sense that tasks previously dominated by mothers are now made easier and more attractive to fathers, who traditionally shied away from these tasks. For example, developments in the technology for child care, such as disposable diapers, instant baby foods, instant milk formula, and even artificial breasts that contain milk to simulate breastfeeding, make it easier from women and allow men to participate more in child rearing. Also included in this category is the Lamaze method, which allows men to participate more actively in the process of birthing. Furthermore, there are now birth control pills for men. In the domain of housework, technological advances, such as microwave ovens, washing machines, ready-to-eat foods, and others, have reduced the drudgery of domestic work for women, and has increased the participation of men in performing house chores. There are also technologies that build the self-confidence of women, and lately, men. These include vanity products and plastic surgery, as well as other technologies in health and recreation. The increasing number of men patronizing these products is evidence of the gender-equalizing effect of these technologies. |
| However, there are also disadvantages, particularly for women and for the cause of gender equality. Feminists who are critical of science and technology point out that science and technology foster a patriarchal system in society, where social relations are structured in such a way that women are subordinate to and controlled by men. The following are the arguments of feminist critics of science and technology. • Science and technology are masculine disciplines dominated by men. While there are some women in the fields of science (such as Marie Curie and Barbara McClintock), most of the scientists, particularly the ones who are more recognized, are men. In fact, the women who thrive in the field of science eventually adopt a “male” perspective. Also, most of them are scholars (that is, they teach science) in the biological sciences, and very few are in the other fields of science. • The male domination of science and technology stems from the fact that the scientific ethos thrives on control and rationality. These are “male” attributes. The scientific work ethic subsists on the need to predict, control and dominate nature, propensities associated with the masculine ethic as opposed to the feminine ethic that rests on emotions, feelings, and solidarity. • Science and technology also become instruments for the objectification of women. Objectification is a process wherein women are seen as objects. Vanity products, for example, affirm the societal bias on women’s appearances and reproduce the view of women as objects of sexual desire. In the development process, the emergence of agricultural mechanization has also had some adverse impacts on women. In some cases, the entry of machines, most of which are designed by male engineers with the image of a “male” farmer as its user, could displace women farmers from their productive work. Science, technology and cultural relations Another domain of power relations lies in what can be called as, for lack of a better term, cultural relations, or the manner by which different people possessing different cultural beliefs due to race/ethnicity, creed, or lifestyle interact within society. The very first, and most obvious, effect of science and technology on cultural relations is in the way science and technology have altered the way of life of traditional communities. Science and technology were bearers of, as well as were borne by, colonialism. That is, they were instruments as well as outcomes of the imposition of alien and modern cultures on traditional societies. The ethos of science and technology in this context were based on control not only of peoples, but also of nature. It is based on the establishment of a universal worldview that upholds the scientific method as the only valid source of knowledge. This naturally did not consider as legitimate the traditional systems of knowledge that existed in traditional societies. |
| Technological developments produced artifacts that were used to facilitate the process of colonization. Colonizers liberally used technologies of violence and modern warfare in their expansionist projects in the new world, other artifacts that were used to tantalize and seduce the natives to acquiesce to the modern worldview, even to a point that images of power were created by their mere possession. For one, modern technologies possessed the power to alter the foundations of society. Cultural symbols were radically altered, and traditional logic lost meaning as these succumbed to the power of the new technologies. This eventually led to the transformation of social relations of production, as well as the power relations in society. The traditional leaders lost their power; traditional production practices yielded to modern agricultural technologies; traditional rituals yielded to modern lifestyles. For example, the entry of mechanized farming not only displaced the indigenous farming systems, but also altered the social relations of production. Traditional relations of reciprocity wherein kinship ties were relied upon to provide collective labor, such as the Bayanihan, were displaced by a more commodified system of work. The entry of new technologies can also create new problems. For example, the entry of canned goods in traditional societies has led to the emergence of what can be called as diseases of “modernity”, such as hypertension and diabetes. Modern technologies also operate on assumptions that may be radically different from those that existed in traditional societies. Let me cite a funny example here: Families in Samoa have relatives in Technological change even at present can alter the way people live their lives, from the way they produce commodities to the way they entertain themselves. Technological developments in popular culture have altered the lifestyles of people to a point that there are even some who argue that technology, far from being a mere instrument of human beings, now have the power to shape human behavior. Here I cite myself as an example. The advent of computers and of word processors has drastically changed the way I write. Prior to this development, I used to write using my “hand.” Now, I am so helpless when I do not have my laptop with me. My flow of thought seems to hit a snag when there is no keyboard and computer screen in front of me. Furthermore, my handwriting, which was already bad before, has become worse, to a point that sometimes, and to my horror, I cannot even read it anymore. |
| Cellular phones also illustrate the profound way in which technologies can alter social and cultural relations in society. On the positive side, it is now easy to connect with people. On the negative side, the heavy use of cellular phones has drastically altered “face to face” communication to a point that some people find more meaning in texting their thoughts than in expressing it personally. Texting has also created a new language that though ingenuous, also threatens to further erode the grammatical skills of students. I have encountered student essays with some words spelled out in encrypted texts. I am not saying that modern technologies are bad or good. In fact, the issue is complex and there are no easy answers. |
Module 3
TOPIC/THEME: Science, technology and the environment: assessing the environmental impacts of science and technology
KEY CONCEPT POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING:
§ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
o A decision-making tool for analyzing a specific intervention, usually in the form of a project, in terms of its impacts to the social and bio-physical environment. It could also be in the form of a particular technology.
o In its usual practice, an EIA is conducted prior to the implementation of a project or adoption of a technology (i.e., it is an ex-ante analysis, as contrasted to an ex-post analysis which is conducted after or during a project’s implementation
o An EIA is conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of experts from the natural and social sciences
§ Core activities in the EIA process
o Scoping—This involves the determination of the scope, depth and terms of reference for the EIA. It is conducted as a consultative process which involves the participation of the different stakeholders. It seeks to identify the following:
§ The stakeholders and their concerns
§ The effective area for assessing impacts, which may not necessarily be just limited to the physical area of operation of the project or the immediate users of the technology, but would include even those areas outside it or those other sectors that may that may potentially receive impacts, either positive or negative, from the project or the use of the technology. This expanded scope is referred to as the “ecological footprint”
§ The threshold limits for adverse impacts, or those levels of impacts beyond which a particular impact becomes unacceptable
o Conduct of the EIA—This would involve both document research and the conduct of fieldwork done by the multi-disciplinary team.
§ Bio-physical impacts are to be assessed in terms of the impacts of the project or technology on, but not limited to, the following:
· Air quality
· Water quality and quantity
· Soil quality
· Wildlife and biodiversity
· Vegetation levels and quality
· Over-all aesthetics
§ Social impacts are to be assessed in terms of the impacts on, but not limited to, the following:
· Employment, income (level and distribution) and livelihoods
· Population size and distribution
· Power relations, social capital and community cohesion
· Local practices and indigenous knowledge
· Security, peace and order
· Public health
§ Usually, what is given priority is the assessment of impacts on marginalized sectors, such as the poor, indigenous communities, and women
§ Social acceptability is also an important parameter for assessing impacts
o Formulation of mitigating and enhancing measures—Mitigating measures are concrete proposals for steps which are to be taken to minimize adverse impacts, while enhancing measures are those proposed to be taken to optimize important positive impacts
§ The conduct of EIA can be enhanced by other impact assessment techniques, such as Benefit-Cost Analysis, Class Analysis, Gender Analysis and Cultural Analysis
o Benefit-Cost Analysis
§ This type of analysis is concerned with the “efficiency” of a particular project or technology
§ It measures the net gain (or loss) which a particular project or technology brings to a society
§ It requires an enumeration, evaluation and valuation of the different benefits and costs of a project or technology, and comparing this to determine whether society will gain or lose
§ Benefits and costs could be seen in two ways:
· Financial—refers to the actual financial benefits and costs associated with the project or technology, i.e. how much money is earned and spent
· Economic—refers to the economic benefits and costs, which include the monetary equivalent of resource gains and losses which may not necessarily be expressed as actual financial gains or expenditures, i.e. the cost of a polluted environment, or the benefits of a healthy population
o Class Analysis
§ This type of analysis is concerned with the impact of a project or technology on the social structure of society
§ Class is interpreted in two ways:
· Liberal-pluralists interpret class as simply a function of one’s income and wealth (upper, middle and lower income classes), or of position vis-à-vis political power (political elites, non-elites)
· Marxists interpret class as a function of one’s relative position in the mode of production, i.e. as land-owner or peasant, or as capitalist or worker
§ Class analysis in the Liberal-Pluralist context
· This entails the identification of the impacts of the project or technology on the distribution of benefits and costs to the different social classes
· A project or technology is considered acceptable if it promotes equality/equity and would lead to the closing of the gap between the rich and the poor
· For example, a technology that is seen as increasing the income of farmers would be seen as a good technology since it would promote class equality. On the other hand, a technology that would only benefit the wealthy would not be good since it would further widen the gap between the rich and the poor
§ Class analysis in the Marxist context
· This involves an inquiry into the impacts of the project on the mode of productions, as well as on the social relations of production
· The following are some of the key focus of class analysis using a Marxist framework:
o Whether the project or technology promotes the transformation of the mode of production, i.e. agricultural mechanization could change agriculture from subsistence farming to commercialized farming, and could have some serious impacts on small farmers
o Whether it has some effects on the social relations between the economic classes, and could lead to the alteration of these social relations, i.e. the entry of some technologies may change what used to be reciprocal relationships (such as free labor, or exchange labor practices) into commodified relations (people will now have to be paid to work); or it is also possible that the entry of technologies could change the way communities are organized, from communal farming to more individualized farming practices
o Whether it promotes labor exploitation, by introducing technologies that would further drive profit up without guaranteeing labor welfare
o Whether it promotes labor displacement, by displacing manual labor with mechanical labor
o Gender Analysis
§ This type of analysis is concerned with the impact of a project or technology to the structure of the relations between women and men in society
§ One focus of gender analysis is to evaluate the gender dimensions of the benefits and costs, particularly on how gender-differentiated are these in terms of who gets most of the benefits and who shoulders most of the burdens
§ Another focus is to assess the impacts of projects or technology to the participation of women in decision-making processes, and in the promotion of gender equality, i.e. does the project or technology enable women to participate in activities beyond the household and into the public sphere?
§ Specific to technologies, one of the main concerns of technology impact assessment is to evaluate its effects on the work of women. The important concern is to asses whether the technology is gender-friendly, and that its design takes into consideration the specific needs of women (and men). A technology would be good if it makes women’s work easier, but would not be acceptable if it displaces women’s labor. An example of this would be a technology that is designed with a male user in mind, when in fact the actual work is mainly done by women.
o Cultural Analysis
§ The main concern of this type of analysis is to determine the impact of a project or technology on the culture of a community
§ The main focus would be the effects on local institutions, particularly on the norms, mores, belief systems, local knowledge and practices, rituals, and other cultural practices that govern the everyday life of the community
§ The introduction of new technologies undoubtedly has adverse impacts on traditional societies. Thus, one of the task in cultural analysis is to identify the level of adverse impact, and the long-term effects of this on the social and cultural life of the community
§ One area of concern is level of control which the community has over changes occurring in their societies. Considering that change is inevitable, the only safeguard left for the community is for them to be able to control the changes happening in their lives. It is therefore useful to assess the impacts of any project or technology on the manner by which local communities are able to control the decision-making processes on matters involving their future. Key to this is the design of the technology and its compatibility with the capabilities of the local communities or users.
Module 4
TOPIC/THEME: Science and Governance: the interplay between science, technology and governance and the prospects for science-based governance, the role of epistemic communities, science-policy connections, the role of science and science-based institutions in policy making
KEY CONCEPT POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING:
- Science and technology are important inputs to the development process, specifically in political and economic development. They perform a significant role in the development of the state and of capitalism. In this context, the scientist became an important national resource for development.
- However, there is a prevailing perception that scientists, whose work is important in identifying and analyzing problems confronting the state and its citizens, find difficulty in becoming useful in identifying solutions. Scientists are seen to be isolated in their ivory towers, lost in their explorations and unmindful of the problems of the real world, thereby rendering them too detached from the policy-making process,
- In the same context, while science and technology have marched across the face of history, altering societies, and have created profound changes in our lives, the scientist and the technologist are nevertheless still perceived by most citizens as politically irrelevant, if not “useless.”
- The
- Poverty threatens the security of our economy
- Conflict among groups, especially between anti and pro Government forces, and between ethnic groups, the rebellion in
- Agricultural problems caused both by human and natural factors pose serous threats to our food security.
- Continuing pressures on the environment resulting from the needs of development have led to environmental degradation, and have severely threatened our environmental security.
- The State, which is the institution whose main function is to oversee the welfare of its citizen, is confronted with these serious problems. What complicates the situation is the fact that these problems emerge in the context of globalization, wherein a global system of market forces and the demands of global partners could provide limits to the options of an independent and sovereign state like the
- Traditionally, the state was considered to be the only institution with the sole responsibility to administer the country’s vast resources to promote the welfare of the people and to pursue the common good. Recently, however, civil society institutions and non-government institutions, such as NGOs, as well as the private sector, have increasingly participated, either as direct service providers, or as partners of the state in development interventions designed to address the various issues and concerns, from poverty reduction, to environmental management, to political rights. This has led to an institutionalization of the essence of “governance”—in which both the state and civil society are now involved in “governing” society to maintain social order and to address the problems of development.
- Ideally, society responds to public problems, such as those associated with the development process, through the formulation and implementation of public policy. Traditionally, the policy process has been usually seen as a domain of the politician. However, this is not entirely correct. The policy-making process involves the participation of three key actors:
o The policy maker, who is usually an elected politician, or public officer who is accountable directly to the voters, or someone who is appointed by a public authority. The policy maker is assumed to be serving the public interest when s/he makes decisions as to what policy should be adopted vis-à-vis a particular problem.
o The policy advocate, who is usually a group representing a sector of civil society. The main work of the advocate is to mobilize support in favor or against an issue or a policy, and to influence the nature and content of public policy through various techniques of political advocacy and mobilization.
- The policy analyst, who is usually an individual who has technical background on a particular issue. The analyst contributes to the policy process by making an objective assessment of the nature and causes of a problem, as well as in analyzing the impacts of a policy proposal or of an existing public policy.
§ While there may be scientists who become politicians, since they are also citizens, and while some scientists become advocates (something which some scientists, particularly those who adhere strictly to the science work ethic of neutrality and detachment, will not be comfortable with), the natural domain of a scientist is policy analysis. Scientists have the technical capability to act as policy consultants, or to participate in technical policy working groups, and act as advisers to policy makers.
§ Science-Governance interplay
o Participation is an important aspect of governance, which has been defined in the context of development and democratization. A core principle that has emerged is a focus on rights-based mechanisms which seek to mainstream the participation of and focus on the rights and needs of marginalized sectors, including women, the poor, indigenous peoples and children.
o Governments address the challenges of globalization, such as the impacts of market liberalization on the lives of these marginalized sectors. In this context, policies emerge no longer through top-down mechanisms, but through venues which enable these sectors to organize to affect fundamental policy changes. Thus, a space emerges where alternative political actors and processes challenge traditional politics in addressing social issues using democratic, gender-equal, and participatory perspectives.
o An important ingredient that has to be mainstreamed in this alternative type of politics is to recognize the role of a “deconstructed” science in the process of governance.
o It is of common knowledge that development problems require both political as well as technological solutions. Ideally, scientific knowledge leads to the development of technologies that are used in the development process.
o Science has been seen as a “neutral,” and therefore an “apolitical” force. However, this view is not at all accurate.
o As pointed out in SOCTEC1, science, while projecting itself in the context of an ethic of neutrality, is actually a political domain in which power relations influence the production of truth. Scientific knowledge is produced as influenced by certain rules, rules that are by nature exclusionary. Thus, science emerges in the context of an alienating, mostly male and elite dominated world, wherein the production of knowledge is prone to elite control, both within countries as well as transnationally in the global community.
o For example, biotechnology is largely in the hands of transnational science-industry complexes. Big corporations sequester control over scientific knowledge, and even traditional knowledge, through the mechanisms of patenting. When traditional knowledge is patented, it effectively leads its alienation from the indigenous societies in which they are located and nurtured.
o Another issue is that governance mechanisms fail to effectively utilize in problem solving and policy-making.
o On the other hand, scientists, particularly those in the natural sciences but including even some social scientists, are unable to translate their research into “readable forms” that can become accessed by policy makers and advocates who are not technically equipped. Many scientists are perceived to be too detached from political realities.
o This weak link between science and policy in the national context is further worsened by lack of state support for scientific research. This leads to a situation wherein scientists become dependent on external funds coming from transnational sources, most of which carry their own agenda.
o The weakness of the science-policy linkage is also attributable to the “cultural” difference between politicians and policy makers and civil society advocates (or those actors who are directly involved in the policy and governance domain) on the one hand, and the scientists on the other. This constrains the development of science-based governance mechanisms for addressing problems of society.
o It is therefore important to point out that while there are now mechanisms that enable the mainstreaming of participatory and alternative politics in governance, there is still much to be done to mainstream science, and more importantly, a “deconstructed science” in governance. This mainstreaming will enable the critical engagement by alternative political movements the exclusionary, elitist and patriarchal discourse that dominates Western science, even as it also enables a critical engagement of the exclusionary, elitist and patriarchal discourse that equally dominates traditional politics. Thus, the are two important tasks:
§ The development of mechanisms to mainstream science in governance
§ The development of mechanisms to deconstruct science
o It is, therefore, clear that we need a “new” kind of science, one that would be more involved in policy and governance. This can only be achieved if one begins to see science no longer as a neutral domain of knowledge, but is more as a prescriptive activity that emerges to respond to the issues and problems of society.
o The following table compares the features of this “new science” to the “old science”
| Old Science | New Science |
| Emphasis on individual researcher | Emphasis on teams of researchers |
| Academic control over research direction | Research direction shaped by interaction with users |
| Curiosity and discipline driven | Problem and issue-based, multi- and inter-disciplinary |
| Problems defined to minimize uncertainty in results | Problems all contain large and pervasive uncertainties |
| Local organizational knowledge base | Diverse sources of knowledge and networks of information |
| Quality judged by peer review | Judgment by users and peers |
| Apparent disinterest of researchers (value free) | Researchers are partisans (value laden) |
| Communication by scientific articles | Diverse forms of communication |
| Linear logic from results to action | Highly non-linear relationship between results and action |
| Stakes are low | Stakes are high |
Source: Lebel (2000), Synthesis Report, Chiang Mai Workshop on Sustainability Science, drawn from the presentation of Robert Wasson
o Fortunately, there is evidence that the link between science and policy is now beginning to be institutionalized. Many NGOs have taken up science-based advocacy in the areas of the environment, sustainable agriculture, global warming, and public health, among others.
o At the global level, this linkage is now seen in the emergence of many international agreements, particularly with respect to the environment. Examples of this are the various global conventions on the environment, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the UN Framework Conference for Climate Change.
o It is interesting to point out that there has been an increasing participation of scientists and academics in providing critical inputs to the formulation of these global institutional arrangements, otherwise known as global environmental regimes. There is now a growing acceptance of the idea that while global governance is the expertise of trained diplomats, the crafting of meaningful and valid agreements is also dependent on the work of scientists.
o The linkage between policy and science has led to the emergence and development of “epistemic communities” which simply refers to a community of science-based policy analysts who are familiar both with the natural sciences as well as with governance processes.
o More specifically, epistemic communities are transnational associations of knowledgeable experts in technical fields, and are organized as networks of people whose existence is established and maintained through repeated interaction in various settings—international meetings and conferences, joint research projects, and involvement in international and nongovernmental organizations. The growing success of epistemic communities in recent years is largely a result of the globalization of information, through developments in information technology and the internet, in which web-based and internet-dependent virtual communities of science emerge.
o The challenge now is how to replicate, and at the same time engage, this global development at the local level, within states. This is necessary to address the crucial task of linking science-based governance to the democratization process at the national and local level.
o There is now a potential to realize this, considering the fact that there are already networks in civil society with science-based connections, and that there are also now a growing number of natural scientists more directly involved in policy advocacy. These scientists appreciate their roles in the development of alternative governance systems and sustainable development processes.
