Andy Stirling: From Risk Regulation to Innovation Governance: reconciling rationality, progress,...

From Risk Regulation to Innovation Governance:

reconciling rationality, progress, precaution & democracy

presentation to conference on ‘Challenging Models in the Face of Uncertainty’,

Clare College, Cambridge 28th – 29th September 2010

Andy StirlingSPRU – science and technology policy research

‘Sound Science’ in Risk Governance

chemicals: “ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…”

Philippe Busquin

GM food “… this government's approach is to

make decisions … on the basis of sound science”Tony Blair

energy: “cool-headed, evidence based assessment … sweep away

historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science”Malcolm Wicks

Krebs: inconvenient pesticides and malleable badgers cases

Convert messy intractable political problems to neat technical puzzles

Pressures for ‘justification’ (Collingridge) and ‘blame management’ (Hood)

nuclear “needs ... a properly objective and science-weapons: based decision” Peter Kilfoyle

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about possibilities

Power and Knowledgecontrasting aspects of incomplete knowledge

after: Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Smithson, Ravetz, Wynne ...

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

unproblematic

problematic




RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY decision rules aggregative analysis deliberative process command structure political closure

reductive modelingstochastic reasoningrules of thumbInsuranceoverwhelming force

` evidence-basing agenda-setting intelligence-led horizon scanning transdisciplinarityliability law

harm definitions indicators / metrics institutional remits rules of engagement

Power and Knowledge Beck’s “organised irresponsibility”

IGNORANCE

not critical – shows pressures not only in use but also shaping of risk science

The Missing Politics of Knowledge

` Conventional ‘risk practices’ suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

` Conventional ‘risk practices’ suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies the realities of ‘risk’ :

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action . Aristotle, Kant, Habermas know-how is less important than know-why – neuro


Conventional ‘risk practices’ suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

` - incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects . Lao Tzu, Socrates, Keynes ‘unknowns’ as important as ‘knowns’ – nanohealth

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:


- indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise . Gödel, Dosi, Collingridge ”known knowns” foster hubris – HHCs and EDCs

- incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects





- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action

- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance . Einstein, Ravetz, Beck… area / perimeter of known – nonlinear dynamics

` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise





- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance

- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability . Ellul, Wynne, Tenner not existence but exposure to unknown – nuclear


` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise





- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability

- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting . Kuhn, Arrow, Jasanoff… knowledge often not linear / additive – GM crops



` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise





- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting

representing incomplete knowledge as ‘risk’ is deeply problematic


- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability


` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise





unproblematic

problematic




RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

risk assessment cost-benefit analysis decision theory optimising models

Power and Knowledge

resist institutional pressures by broadening out appraisal methods

unproblematic

problematic



AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

risk assessment , cost-benefit analysis decision theory optimising models

uncertainty heuristics

interval analysis

sensitivity testing


From ‘Risk’ to Precautionresist institutional pressures by broadening out appraisal methods

scenarios / backcasting

interactive modeling

mapping / Q-methods

participatory deliberation

unproblematic

problematic



AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

UNCERTAINTY



interval analysis

sensitivity testing



From ‘Risk’ to Precaution

unproblematic

problematic



AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

UNCERTAINTY



interval analysis

sensitivity testing

scenarios / backcasting

interactive modeling

mapping / Q-methods

inclusive engagement

humility, monitoring, surveillance,

targeted research / enquiry diversity, flexibility, resilience,

learning, adaptability




unproblematic

problematic



precautionary appraisal

participatory deliberation

reductive aggregation

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE




extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance real world effects: CFCs, DES; ‘closed systems’: MTBE, PCBs

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation omission of persistence in organochlorines,

MTBE, CFCspro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

neglected: TBT, BSE; no monitoring: asbestos, benzene, PCBsdeliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion

Swann committee on antimicrobials, 1967 later ignored

alternative options pros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes ALARA, BAT, BPM – ionising radiation, fisheries,

acid rain

engage public independence through pluralism and robustness on values benzene, DES, asbestos, acid rain, fisheries

cross-disciplinary learning collect all relevant knowledge, beyond the ‘usual suspects’

Precaution as ‘Broadening Out’ Appraisal (cf: EEA, 2001)

a knowledge process, not just ‘decision rule’ in risk management

Avoids narrow ‘risk’, but still a governance of the constraints (Beck)

rather than the opportunities and agency of technology…

The Missing Politics of Technology

all technology is good…

all innovation is good…

“For the the Lisbon Strategy … pro-innovationaction [is] a priority.” - EU Council of

Ministers

“[we need] more pro-innovation policies …” - Gordon Brown

“a pro- technology culture must be created…”

- Council for Science and Technology

GM critics are “anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’” - United Nations

time


SCIENCE

TECHNOLOGY

‘linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate

eg:

…“we'll restore science to its rightful place”...- US President Barack Obama

PAST

FUTURE

…“history is a race to advance technology” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering

…“you can’t stop progress” …

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives… no politics … no choice !



PAST

FUTURE

time

eg:




time

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !

Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast? … who leads?



PAST

FUTUREeg:




time

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !

Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast?’ … who leads?

Seriously neglects questions over: which way? …what alternatives? says who? …why?



PAST

FUTUREeg:




space of technologicalpossibilities

time

Technology Choice as Optimisation

Mainstream policy represents technology as optmising thro’:

- ‘sound science’ - material constraints - technical standrads - market equilibrium

diverse starting points converge to ‘optimal’ configurations

in each area: diversity converges to optimality

Methods and institutions of risk regulation as aids to optimisation– disproportionate focus on modes for implementing incumbent path

Closing Down Choice in Innovation Governance

Common picture arising in all studies of technology in society –

it’s the other way around!

multiple diverging directions

time

from any single starting point, there typically branch out many equally

possible (technically feasible and socially viable) innovation pathways

‘best path’ is not about optimisation but political choice

- imagined ontologies of action – ‘parameterise knowledge space’

- provide axes for polarisation …- provide axes for polarisation … but also basis for pluralistic realism

BUT: a diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change

innovationis ‘vector’

not ‘scalar’

time



economics: homeostasis (Sahal, 85) lock-in (Arthur, 89)

regimes (Nelson & Winter, 77) trajectories (Dosi, 82)

time



not ‘scalar’


economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories

history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83)

path-dependence (David, 85) path creation (Karnoe, 01)

time



not ‘scalar’



history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation

philosophy/politics: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91)

entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02)

time



not ‘scalar’


philosophy/politics: autonomy closure entrapment alignment

social studies: shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03)

expectations (Lente, 00) imaginaries (Jasanoff, 05)

time


history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation



not ‘scalar’

QWERTY keyboards

… light water reactors …

… military systems …

Historic ‘Branching Paths’

Many examples of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’ of choices

time


not ‘scalar’


Narrow Gauge Railways

… urban transport …

… internal combustion engine …

particulartrajectories

‘lock in’

time



VHS and Betamax

… media standards …

… Windows software…

Deliberately or blindly – societies choose innovation pathways

time



‘lock in’

(in process, display analogous epistemic and ontological ‘lock-in’)

Contending priorities & plural knowledges yield diverse pathways:

eg: sustainable energy: – nuclear power;

– carbon capture and storage; – intercontinental renewables;

– centralised national renewables – distributed energy services;

time

All are technically feasible and potentially economically viable, but not all fully realisable together, especially in globalised world

Alternative ‘Possible Futures’


‘lock in’

Contending priorities & plural knowledges yield diverse pathways:

eg: nanotechnology: – military ‘spin-offs’ or dedicated design;

– IP-driven or ‘open source – private / public / community applications;

– contained / dispersed use – ‘northern’ or ‘southern’ markets;

– public open source research;

time

All are technically feasible and potentially economically viable, but not all fully realisable together, especially in globalised world

Alternative ‘Possible Futures’


‘lock in’

‘lock-in’ to innovation trajectories favoured by

incumbent interests

institutionalised technical risk assessment

multiple feasible technology

trajectories

Conventional Context for ‘Risk Regulaton’

SOCIAL APPRAISAL

GOVERNANCE COMMITMENTS

‘closed down’ policy discourse

POSSIBLE PATHWAYS

unitary ‘sound scientific’ ‘evidence based’, expert

prescriptions

citizen ‘verdicts’ / deliberative consensus

single ‘best / optimal / most legitimate’

decisions

risk / cost-benefit analysis

disciplinary deliberation

restricted view of options, knowledges, uncertainties

safety interest-funded science, selective stakeholder engagement

Single path

narrow scope of attention in ‘risk regulation’

Op

tion

s$IIIIII

IIIIII

$IIIIII

$IIIIIIIIIIII

$

POSSIBLE PATHWAYSMULTIPLE

PATHWAYSGOVERNANCE COMMITMENTS

broad-based technology appraisal

‘opening up’ politics of innovation

more diverse, flexible, deliberate (‘robust’) socio-

technical pathways

‘best path’ depends on: contexts, perspectives,

places, sensitivities, scenarios, equilibria,

pathways, discourses

multiple: institutions, disciplines, methods, issues, options, frames, uncertainties, contexts, properties, perspectives, discourses, modalities

‘Broadening’ & ‘Opening Up’ Innovation Governance

Sustainability

O

ptio

ns

SOCIAL APPRAISAL

Reconciliations: precaution/progress; rationality/democracy

False dichotomy: rational risk science vs emotive precaution / participation

All analysis & deliberation ‘framed’ by priorities, values and interests

Misleading language: generic pro-/anti- rhetorics’ obscure plural directions

Undermines agency, accountability in democratic politics of technology choice

Precaution: not just ‘management’: ‘broadening’ methods, options, views

Rigour over uncertainty, ambiguity, ignorance on implications of directions

Participation: not in itself a panacea for enabling more democratic choice

Vulnerable (like analysis) to instrumental pressures for justification

Practical approaches: many ways to ‘open’ analysis, deliberation, politics

Mapping methods, participatory modeling, plural and conditional advice

Reconcile science & democracy…from ‘enlightenment’ to ‘enablement’?

‘Opening up’: inform and catalyse more mature politics of technology

Reflexivity and responsibility on contending values & interests in social choice

Andy Stirling: From Risk Regulation to Innovation Governance: reconciling rationality, progress,...

Education

Transcript of Andy Stirling: From Risk Regulation to Innovation Governance: reconciling rationality, progress,...