FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W121035497> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W121035497 abstract "Advances in science and technology have brought us to this moment of crisis and possibility. It is a moment of crisis in so far as we have entered the so-called risk society (Beck: 1992). There are also internal tensions and crises within the science community itself. Gone are former certainties, to be replaced by what seems like an endless vista of increased complexity, uncertainty and deepening specialization. Science is no longer driven by independent polymaths or lone researchers, but is instead driven by a very complex research and development system. With greater focus on the necessary deepening of specialized knowledge, it becomes more and more difficult to speak and understand across disciplines. We are simultaneously being showered with a plentitude of possibilities. In recent times, for instance, the worlds of nanotechnology and biotechnology have begun to present possibilities that were the stuff of science fiction not long ago. What is possible, forks before us like a dynamic and growing nervous system-reaching ever deeper into previous dusk and darkness. We are being presented with answers to questions we have not even formulated, to possibilities that we have not yet considered. The democratic process is less engaged in the sifting process of what's important, that is increasingly being done on economic imperatives by industry, and more engaged in a holding operation after key decisions have already been taken to progress discovery towards deployment. This in effect presents a challenge of crisis and possibility at the socio-political level. Here the crises are in two main categories. The first is that we don't seem to have the means to discuss, debate or make decisions about these new possibilities. The issues fall layer upon layer, leaving the decision-making systems and processes seemingly hopelessly overloaded. There is no possibility of the full citizenry, nor indeed professional politicians, staying abreast of the full scale of issues arising. The second level of crisis is represented by the struggles to imagine ways in which we could democratically deal with science and technology. While it is a crisis at one level, much discussed and debated, it also ironically presents a set of exciting possibilities. Having to stretch our political and social imaginations to address these extremely complex issues has given rise to a new politics. Active political engagement today is not confined to governments, politicians, public officials and political institutions. We have seen the emergence of new kinds of actors, new social movements, new deliberative institutions like citizens' juries and consensus conferences and new ways of understanding the political. This new dispensation is messy, fluid, unpredictable and not necessarily closure oriented. However it is also dynamic and capable of a level of complexity and diversity not possible under traditional models. It allows for the development of pockets of public expertise capable of engaging scientific expertise and influencing both policy and public perspectives and behaviour. It is an open system in terms of both who can participate and how they can participate. All voices do not have to be heard simultaneously on all issues, but public contestation of issues is absolutely essential. Here the idea of triple contingency (Strydom: 1999b), which I discuss later, is extremely important. This model can only operate effectively in the context of an open and vibrant civil society, shored up by traditional rights like a free press, free speech, freedom of association. In our time, when these freedoms are at an extremely high premium for the common good, they are under pressure in western democracies. What democracy means and how it operates has become a serious concern. This debate has come to the fore especially in addressing issues around science and technology. At one level there is a growing public apprehension about the direction science and technology is taking, these fears are at both the level of consequences and the perceived lack of citizen direction and control of science and technology. Sclove (1995) argues that technological development needs to be addressed through posing 'appropriate questions'. He contends that 'technology is implicated in perpetuating anti-democratic power relations and in eroding social contexts for developing and expressing citizenship' (Sclove, 1995: 7). This theme is related to Lukes' (1974) contention that agenda setting is 'the supreme and most insidious exercise of power', which prevents citizens 'from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences' (Lukes, 1974: 24). In a society increasingly constructing the world in terms of risk, there is a danger of losing sight of the unprecedented common good potentials of science and technology, as clearly evidenced in a wide range of areas including enhanced wealth, health, comfort, education, recreation, and convenience. Keeping the balance between public good and potential risk is critical. Contemporary public debate about science and technology is predominated by scepticism towards its benefits and a fear of its consequences. Focusing on negative aspects of science and technology is equally problematic to viewing science and technology as the harbinger of all things good. We need to develop a more balanced approach, a deeper sense of ownership of both the risks and benefits of science and technology. That is the truly demanding challenge of our time. That in my view can best be achieved through a recognition that civil society has changed, that collective learning is important, that triple contingency helps shape public perspectives and democracy can be understood in more ways than traditional constitutional definitions. Decisions need to be made in ways that are perceived as legitimate and inclusive, avoiding what Pellizzoni (2003) describes as 'insulation and distance between each partial public sphere' (Pellizzoni, 2003: 216). This can arise even at a local level, by allowing for the development of in-groups of elites engaged in a process, which of itself might very well be discursive in design, but nonetheless at a remove from the rest of civil society. This problem becomes even more challenging once we consider that decisions have to be made on a complexity of planes from the local to the global. There is general agreement that democracy needs to be at the centre of the decision making process, but there is little agreement on what actually constitutes democracy or in what institutional contexts it might operate." @default.
• W121035497 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W121035497 creator A5065439976 @default.
• W121035497 date "2005-11-24" @default.
• W121035497 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W121035497 title "Learning to Balance Risk and Opportunity: Collective Decision Making on Science and Tecnology" @default.
• W121035497 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W121035497 type Work @default.
• W121035497 sameAs 121035497 @default.
• W121035497 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W121035497 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W121035497 hasAuthorship W121035497A5065439976 @default.
• W121035497 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W121035497 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W121035497 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W121035497 hasConcept C168031717 @default.
• W121035497 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W121035497 hasConceptScore W121035497C144133560 @default.
• W121035497 hasConceptScore W121035497C15744967 @default.
• W121035497 hasConceptScore W121035497C162324750 @default.
• W121035497 hasConceptScore W121035497C168031717 @default.
• W121035497 hasConceptScore W121035497C169760540 @default.
• W121035497 hasLocation W1210354971 @default.
• W121035497 hasOpenAccess W121035497 @default.
• W121035497 hasPrimaryLocation W1210354971 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W139493658 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W17194088 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W1965937986 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2004815996 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2027672374 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2029618855 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2046805322 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2077603734 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W209172447 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2109508909 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2198520286 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2317642779 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2896730940 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W3008082950 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W3146411351 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W3209778716 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W600580297 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W81483981 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2188838950 @default.
• W121035497 hasRelatedWork W2344111930 @default.
• W121035497 isParatext "false" @default.
• W121035497 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W121035497 magId "121035497" @default.
• W121035497 workType "article" @default.