9
Hermeneutic Assessment: Toward an Interdisciplinary Research Program

The significance of assigning meaning to NEST for RRI debates has been demonstrated in the previous chapters with reference to paradigmatic cases. Some lessons learned will be summarized briefly (section 9.1). Building on these observations, the main objective of this chapter is to characterize a research program for hermeneutic assessment which could serve the needs for enlightenment identified. After some introductory remarks on hermeneutic approaches and methodologies (section 9.2), the largest part of the chapter is dedicated to developing perspectives for hermeneutical research on the processes of creation and communication of meaning assigned to NEST as well as on their consequences. These perspectives refer to the sciences and humanities to be involved as well as to appropriate methodologies. Finally (section 9.4), a look back to the five initial motivations to write this book (section 1.1) gives rise to a brief epilogue.

9.1. Assigning meaning to NEST as object of responsibility

The main message developed in this book is, according to my own assessment, the extension of the scope of responsibility in RRI debates on NEST developments. Complementing the familiar view that possible future consequences of NEST under consideration have to be made the object of responsibility, the analysis has shown that there are significant objects of responsibility further upstream: those assignments and attributions which create social, ethical, economic or cultural meaning of NEST and which thus make the respective NEST an issue for RRI debates only. The assignment of meaning in very early stages of development is the most upstream point of any RRI debate.

Two mechanisms of assigning meaning to new science and technology have been considered (without postulating that there could not be any others): (1) techno-visionary futures building the bridge between breakthroughs and advance at the level of science and engineering on the one hand and futures of humans and society on the other hand; and (2) definitions and characterizations of those new developments in order to better understand their specificalities and their novelty. Both types of assignments may be interpreted by simple action theory as the following reference to Chapter 2 shows:

  • – assignments of meaning are actions: they have authors pursuing goals and purposes; neither technology futures nor definitions arise on their own, but are made in social processes or by individual authors;
  • – assignments of meaning are based on diagnoses and assessments as to why the achievement of an objective or the occurrence of intended consequences is expected to become reality;
  • – assigning meaning happens by making use of certain means: texts, speeches, narratives, diagrams, images, works of art, films, etc.;
  • – assignments of meaning are interventions into the real world and may have consequences to some degree, intended or unintended. They may serve not only to reach the goals but also could imply unexpected risk.

Therefore, the creation and attribution of meaning not only can be made the object of responsibility, just as any action can, but also should be made. The main argument for this extension of the scope of responsibility is simply the significance of those meaning-giving actions for the upcoming RRI debates. As has been shown by considering the case studies (Chapters 5–8), assigning meaning to NEST may heavily influence RRI debates. To a large extent, these are discussing consequences and implications of the meaning that had been assigned in preceding stages, in particular by relating extrapolations of ongoing research with social or human futures. The assignment of meaning precedes and thus influences the subsequent RRI debates, e.g. by determining what is regarded as an opportunity possibly emerging from NEST and what is regarded as being a risk [RIP 07].

The objects of responsibility here are not, as is mostly debated in RRI on NEST, the possible consequences of today’s NEST developments for some point in the future but the processes of creating, disseminating and deliberating the meaning of specific NEST developments. These are taking place in the present and already have consequences and impacts in the present – and therefore should explicitly be made subject to responsibility assessments and reflections.

In particular, risks might also emerge from the assignment of meaning. One specific risk is the overselling of new technology which is often related to the risk of frustration. Visions and characterizations involving high promises and expectations could be regarded, after some years, as only having been a medium of selling science and gaining political and funding support. While the initial assignment of meaning to NEST often intends to create fascination and motivation in science and society, there might be a backlash after some time, resulting in frustration and loss of trust in science. Other possible risks have already been mentioned (section 3.3.1). In particular, the ambivalence of techno-visionary futures could be experienced in several case studies: “Tremendous transformative potential comes with tremendous anxieties” [NOR 04, p. 4]. There is also the risk of predetermination of societal RRI debates by techno-visionary futures and/or characterizations of NEST created by science managers and scientists in order to lobby for their own interests. This would promote a specific kind of technocracy [HAB 68] and constitute an obstacle to democratic deliberation.

In a normatively ambitious deliberative democracy [BAR 84] giving meaning to NEST fields must be subject to democratic debate because the assignment of meaning could have consequences affecting the entire society (Chapter 1). Thus, the preconditions have to be fulfilled so that an informed democratic debate can take place at all and so that its outcomes may have real impact. In particular, it also implies that responsibility for assigning meaning to NEST must not simply be given to scientists or the science system, as they are only part of a democratic society [HAB 68, ROR 98]. On the contrary, in a deliberative democracy, there is a strong postulate for early involvement of other actors which means that there is a co-responsibility shared between science and society. It is exactly this co-responsibility which is often subject to controversial debates (see [MAU 06, GRU 12e, GRU 14c] for the case of synthetic biology) because there is no predetermined borderline between the responsibility of science and social responsibility. Instead, the borderline, or, to put it differently, the interpretation of the “co” in co-responsibility, will be an outcome of ongoing debates, deliberations and negotiations. Regardless, and independent from the exact determination of the borderline and the cooperation in a specific case, assigning and debating meaning of NEST must be subject to that “co-”responsibility – which goes hand-in-hand with the extension of the scope of responsibility in RRI debates proposed in this book (Chapter 2).

Hermeneutic analysis and assessment will help clarify those issues of responsibility not covered by the established approach of looking at possible future consequences of NEST in a consequentialist manner (Chapter 3). They should serve the practical purpose of enabling and empowering democratic debate concerning the assignment of meaning to NEST, either by techno-visionary futures or by definitions and characterizations. Realizing these expectations needs ideas for appropriate approaches and methodologies.

9.2. Hermeneutic approaches

The clarification of the processes of creating and spreading meanings assigned to NEST, and of their consequences in politics, science and society is confronted by diverse demands that are associated with the great variety of the issues. Here are a few examples:

  • – how is the attribution of meaning communicated via mass media or expert networks?
  • – what does a certain attribution of meaning to NEST mean given the historical and cultural background of the respective topic?
  • – which messages does a work of art created in the light of NEST (e.g. nanotechnology or synthetic biology) spread?
  • – how do scientists or science managers create meanings for NEST? Which considerations play a role in bringing together prospects of the techno-scientific advance and futures of humans and society?
  • – which competing meanings are created by civic society organizations [ETC 03, ETC 10, FRI 06] and what are they based on?
  • – why do some meanings prevail over their alternatives and why do others disappear without having had any impact?
  • – why do some visions or narratives become dominant and mobilize large sums of research funding, while others disappear again without any consequences of note?
  • – why do some visions reappear after having disappeared and then have an impact after a period of latency?

The variety of questions and contexts is too great to employ one uniform methodology here. On the contrary, to answer these and other questions and to understand the underlying processes instead requires the entire breadth of hermeneutic procedures. These include above all, but are certainly not limited to, empirical, reconstructive, social scientific, philosophical, historical, linguistic and art historical approaches. In section 9.3, I will suggest some exemplary associations between methods, disciplines and hermeneutic questions of meaning concerning NEST. At this point, let me first provide a general overview.

The term “hermeneutics” stems from 19th Century philosophy and the subject was originally the understanding of canonical texts such as the Bible. This is obviously a very different case than understanding NEST meanings. What they share is the wish to understand. This wish can be fulfilled at very different levels of abstraction. First, it seems possible that there are some specific links between the NEST debates and the philosophical approaches of Heidegger, Gadamer or Ricoeur. Thus, it appears quite plausible to use the narrative hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur [RIC 81, NIL 99] to clarify the discussions and processes of communication about the meaning of NEST, which are to a great extent narratively formed. Second, the anthropological question can be raised regarding the extent to which and in which manner a self-constitution of man also takes place in the struggle over the meaning of enhancement (Chapter 7), in which man takes a position on fundamental questions regarding his relationship to his own nature [GUT 02]. Approaches of these types can, however, only satisfy a small part of the expectations placed in the clarification of the attributions of meaning to NEST. They must be supplemented by analyses that are rich in empirical content and thus stem from the social sciences or linguistics [GRA 15]. Overall, it is possible to distinguish three modes of argumentation in hermeneutics that is understood in an interdisciplinary sense [GRA 15]:

  • – in the empirical mode, the point is to clarify the factual processes of the creation, attribution and communication of meaning, to pursue not only the traces of these processes and the probable migrations of elements of meaning concerning NEST but also their possible disappearance or their possible careers and transformations in the debates;
  • – in the interpretative mode, the task is to interpret the results found empirically in the RRI context and in light of the concept of responsibility, to put them in relation to the cultural, historic and intellectual developments, and to clarify what they include and what they exclude;
  • – in the normative mode, questions are raised as to how the results found empirically can be evaluated according to the standards of discourse ethics and deliberative democracy, where legitimate criticism of the factual processes and their results with regard to the attribution of meaning can be practiced, and which suggested improvements can be made on the basis of which arguments.

When the talk is of hermeneutic assessment, obviously more than research is meant. Analogous to the concepts of technology assessment [GRU 09a], risk assessment and sustainability assessment, the point of hermeneutic assessment is an evaluative appraisal on the basis of the available knowledge. Hermeneutic assessment thus has an evaluative side, and for this purpose it integrates the modes of argumentation mentioned above into a coherent image. The experience gained by technology assessment can be employed here [BÖH 15], in particular with regard to the analysis of the actors, discourse and policy in complex fields of action.

Precisely from a hermeneutic view of RRI debates on NEST, the utensils employed in the attributions of meaning, and their significance, appear of special interest. Texts such as the Ecomodernist Manifesto [MAN 15], the Ilulissat Statement on synthetic biology [ILU 07], the ETC group’s demands for a moratorium on nanotechnology [ETC 03] or countless other texts on science, science policy or lobbying as well as the mass media’s reports to the public are certainly particularly important means of attributing meaning. These texts often contain images, scientific diagrams and figures that can provide specific avenues to understanding and also unfold effects that a simple text cannot. Linked to this can be suggestions and ideological influences. The attribution of meaning furthermore takes place by means of the “act”, i.e. an intervention in ongoing practice, such as through campaigns by civil society groups [ETC 03, FRI 06]. Spoken language, although also a text though not a written one, also belongs in the category of acts, in this case intended for performance and effect in the sense of language pragmatics and with the goal of convincing others. There are also distinctive objects which can be used to symbolically signify NEST-specific features, such as nanotechnological images of the world of atoms and molecules [NOR 03, LÖS 06] or symbols such as DNA’s double helix that puts synthetic biology’s technical access in a natural context. The prospects offered by science fiction films of the robots possible in the future present a medium of the entertainment industry that may be going yet beyond entertainment value and may be preparing us for the normality of robots as companions (Chapter 6). Documentaries such as in science programs on television provide us not only with information, but also with interpretative considerations of the respective fields of NEST. For example, they make comparisons between NEST and existing forms of technology or compare it with models from nature. Comparisons require, however, hermeneutic analysis with reference to the sameness and differentness and to the limits of the comparison. It is not for nothing that there are frequently arguments about what we can compare under which conditions.

The selection of the disciplines and methods to hermeneutically decode texts and other utensils in the RRI debates on NEST must be aligned on the given expectations. If the object is to understand texts, then different means of access to understanding are needed than for understanding objects of art. To understand complex communicative processes, linguistic [FEL 13], philosophical [MIT 97] or sociological discourse analysis [KEL 11b] or hermeneutics are required. The selection of certain disciplinary orientations or methods has to be made according to the aspects of practicality relative to the interest guiding the pursuit of knowledge. Necessary here is the opening of hermeneutics to the empirically minded tradition of discourse analysis in the social sciences and linguistics, which in fact corresponds to its development in recent years [GRA 15, p. 200].

9.3. The emergence of NEST meaning: hermeneutic assessment

While the significance of construction and assignment of meaning to NEST for RRI debates has been demonstrated extensively in the preceding chapters, only a few remarks have been made on an appropriate methodology of hermeneutic research and assessment. In this section, a processual approach is chosen to structure proposals for uncovering processes of the emergence of NEST meaning. This approach follows the “biography” of techno-visionary futures and definitions and characterizations of NEST, and aims at uncovering their dynamics from their construction over communication up to their consequences1.

9.3.1. The dynamics of assigning meaning

Futuristic visions as well as NEST definitions and characterizations are social constructs – man-made and not discovered (Chapter 3). They are created and disseminated by individual authors, teams, journalists, scientists and science managers, or they emerge from discourse within scientific communities or at the interface between science and society. They are communicated via different channels, journals, networks, mass media, research applications, expert groups, ELSI or TA projects on policy advice, etc. Some of them, finding no resonance, will “die” within these communication processes and quickly disappear again, while others will “survive” and motivate actors and groups to subscribe to or oppose the visions – in either case, the story will continue [SEL 08]. Only a few of the visions and even less of the definitions proposed will find an audience via the mass media and will therefore be able to achieve real impact for public debate and social perception or attitudes. Others may enter the political arena and result in political decisions, e.g. about research funding, and may disappear after having had big impact only. The history of spaceflight, for instance, is full of techno-visionary promises which regularly fail but nevertheless survive. The narratives of human settlements on the Mars or on artificial space stations belong to those persistent stories.

Regarding the cases considered in this volume, there are some evident examples: the vision of the molecular assembler [DRE 86] was among the motivating voices for the NNI initiative “Shaping the World Atom by Atom” [NNI 99] which was the first big funding program on nanotechnology (Chapter 5). After an intensive debate involving the Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley [SMA 01], the vision of the assembler disappeared quickly while political support for nanotechnology remained stable. The narratives around climate engineering (Chapter 8), including some breath-taking proposals with respect to the magnitude of human intervention into the global atmospheric system, have not yet reached a larger audience – neither in the form of funding for research and development nor in public debates. Compared to the early reactions on nanotechnology [ETC 03] and their public resonance, the situation in climate engineering seems to be relaxed in spite of the incredible depth of the interventions proposed and in spite of interventions of civil society organizations (CSOs) [ETC 10]. How could these differences be explained and what could be learned from better understanding? Another interesting case is the revival of specific understandings after some time. In the 1970s, there was a lively debate on artificial intelligence with high expectations and far-ranging techno-visionary futures following the establishment of computer sciences and cybernetics. These futures disappeared in subsequent decades but have been re-entering public and scientific debates in recent years (Chapter 6). The normalization of today’s or tomorrow’s robots obviously has been prepared for by earlier debates on artificial intelligence and robots – and also by science fiction movies and literature which early took up ideas from that field. Stanley Kubrick’s movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) thematizing the issue of power distribution between man and an intelligent machine is among the famous early examples.

Thus, we see different dynamics in different NEST fields with different biographies [GRO 16] of meaning and different techno-visionary futures influencing social debates [SEL 08]. My conviction is that it would be worthwhile to better understand these dynamics and biographies for ongoing and future RRI debates on NEST. Understanding must go beyond a mere description of what happened but rather uncover the underlying mechanisms and dependencies.

These different and dynamic biographies of techno-visionary futures and the characterizations of new science and technology can be analyzed taking recent NEST developments as case studies. This could contribute to a deepened understanding of the social dynamics dealing with issues of meaning of NEST but also of the creation and emergence of those meaning-giving narratives. These could also be analyzed in an extended manner by examining their cultural and historical roots [COE 10] and philosophical backgrounds (see [GRU 16a] for the case of synthetic biology). Thus, we can regard constructions of NEST meaning – techno-visionary futures as well as characterizations of NEST – as part of an ongoing communication process in science and at the interface of science and society in which specific assignments of meaning, e.g. the nanobots [DRE 86] or the chip in the brain (Chapter 7), act as the necessary catalysts with their own individual biography or lifecycle showing certain dynamics over time.

Biographies of futuristic visions and characterizations as well as their dynamics are not well understood as yet [SEL 08]. The entire “life cycle” of techno-visionary futures, from their construction to dissemination, assessment, deliberation and impact, thus raises a huge variety of research questions which can only be answered by giving interdisciplinary consideration to these aspects. Analogously, the dynamics of the meaning assigned to NEST by definitions and characterizations also seems to be an interesting subject to study. In the very early stages of NEST developments, there is often competition between different and more or less divergent descriptions (Chapter 4). After some time some of the proposals are usually sorted out, others might merge while only few “winners” remain and constitute a dominant understanding of the NEST under consideration. Again and again those developments happen in completely different fields such as nanotechnology (Chapter 5), synthetic biology, care robots or cyber-physical systems. A comparative analysis would probably shed some light on these processes and their dynamics.

The main objective of studying the biography of techno-visionary futures and of characterizations and their underlying dynamics would be to generate more knowledge about and greater insights into the communicative processes surrounding the creation and processing of NEST meaning. Investigating its emergence and dissemination via different communication channels and its possible impact on decision-making in the policy arena and other arenas of public communication and debate involves empirical research and reconstructive understanding as well. Innovative formats for improving communicative practice and for making it more transparent should be developable on the basis of this knowledge [SIU 09]. This can contribute to a normalization of visionary sciences (following the case of nanotechnology, see [GRU 10b]), shifting the perception of new and emerging science and technology from a “hope & hype” structure or mere expectations [VAN 93] to a more or less “down to earth” and evolutionary perception.

The structuring of the field begins with an almost trivial thought according to the diagnosis of techno-visionary futures and characterizations being socially constructed [GRU 12a, GRU 13a]. Their authors can be individual persons, such as the authors of science fiction novels, or collectives such as research institutes or participatory foresight processes. They always pursue specific purposes, for example supporting political decisions, sensitizing the public for problematic developments, mobilizing support for research, creating a vision for regional development, introducing certain distinctions, identifying novelties, in particular possibly disruptive ones, warning at an early stage about potential problems, etc. Appropriate means for constructing the futures and clarifying the characterizations will then be applied in order to reach these goals. The application of those means is an intervention in the real world and may have some impact – the intended ones but possibly also others.

The perspective of action theory on meaning-giving activities (techno-visionary futures and characterizations) leads to a comprehensible structure of the hermeneutic analysis. The objects in the focus of consideration are, evidently, processes of creation and communication of assignments of meaning to NEST. This includes, on the one hand, an understanding of their origin and construction (section 9.3.3) and, on the other hand, an understanding of their diffusion in communicative processes and the consequences of these processes (section 9.3.4).

9.3.2. NEST meaning: understanding origin and process

Because meaning is created, it is also important to understand the process and context of its construction and the involved background preconditions and underlying diagnoses and assessments. Techno-visionary futures as meaning-giving instruments are constructs composed of highly diverse components (Chapter 3): scientific knowledge from different sources and of different quality, fantasies and speculation, expectations and anxieties, diagnoses and perspectives, knowledge of the life world, ad hoc assumptions, estimations of relevance, ceteris paribus conditions and many more. Definitions and characterizations in NEST build on established and often disciplinary descriptions but go beyond – often in an unclear mode of operation and by using arguments with an unclear status [SCH 03]. The hermeneutic analysis of assignments of meaning extends to clarifying this opaque mesh of varied ingredients, and also to reconstructing the process of composing the many ingredients into a coherent narrative about the NEST under consideration (Chapters 3 and 4). This hermeneutic clarification includes [GRU 14b]:

  • – the analysis of the actor constellation2: which actors – individuals as well as collectives such as project groups, institutes or associations – belong to the authors? Which perspectives do they bring? Which motives are they pursuing? What ideas do they have about the relationship between technology and society? What is their stand in general toward scientific, technological progress? To which contexts, networks, policy groups, pressure groups, etc., can they be assigned?
  • – the reconstruction of the purposes: why and for what purpose was a specific techno-future designed? What will a proposal for a definition bring about? Which diagnoses, values or even interests are behind this choice of aims? Are there different and perhaps conflicting goals and purposes pursued by different actors?
  • – the reconstruction of the creation: in the construction of techno-visionary futures and in framing a proposal for a definition, numerous decisions must be made about the purposes pursued (see above) and the means identified as appropriate to reach the purposes. In particular, building techno-visionary futures needs ingredients (e.g. background data, assumptions and estimates of relevance) and a process of composing them into a coherent picture of the future. Determining the reasons for these decisions and assumptions as well as the underlying diagnoses and values constitutes a substantial contribution to understanding the meaning assigned to NEST by techno-visionary futures and by characterizations. The result of the process, i.e. the techno-future attached to a specific NEST development or the proposal for characterizing the NEST field with the corresponding meaning assigned to that NEST field, depends of course on the decisions made in the course of the construction process;
  • – the reconstruction of the use of utensils other than text: for what purposes have they been selected and which messages will they tell (see section 9.3.3)?
  • – the reconstruction of the underlying conditions presupposed in performing the previous step, i.e. the basic assumptions and premises under which the respective techno-visionary future was designed and the definition was formulated. These are essential metadata for making an adequate interpretation of those meaning-giving processes possible.

These steps help understanding of how and why specific meanings are attributed to NEST developments and how and why specific measures such as techno-visionary futures and proposals for definitions and characterizations have been chosen and why specific utensils have been selected. This attribution of meaning takes place relative to the authors’ different backgrounds and diagnoses, relative to values and interests, and relative to the reasons and purposes for which the respective meaning-giving entities were created. It is thus not surprising that the attribution of meaning to NEST usually is controversial as we have seen in the case studies (Chapters 5–8).

What also becomes clear from this consideration is that those controversies cannot be resolved by a scientific debate only. Because of the involvement of values, interests and pictures of how a future society should or should not look like, the determination of the meaning of NEST is not a scientific task but must rather involve stakeholders, citizens and policy makers. It is not the future of science which is at stake but the future of humans and society, which makes the attribution of meaning to NEST an issue involving the public and democratic deliberation. The proposals of assigning meaning to NEST developments are thus a catalyst or a medium of social debates and deliberations taking place in present time [GRU 12a]. The hermeneutic analysis offers the possibility of reaching a better understanding of the origins and roots, diagnoses and underlying perceptions of the diverging proposals and will thus allow for a better informed and enlightened democratic debate.

Therefore, the approach of hermeneutic enlightenment is, in particular, of significance with respect to democracy because techno-futures and definitions will have a considerable impact on science policy and public debate (see section 1.3 and [GRU 13a]). These are often initially created by scientists or science managers who believe in progress and whose attitude toward technology is frequently euphoric. To work out these underlying normative attitudes and to use them as metadata in the RRI debate should help to make us better able to assess the respective techno-visionary futures and the characterizations of NEST fields to avoid hidden technocratic biases.

The techniques of social scientific discourse analysis are methods especially suitable for such analyses [KEL 10, KEL 11b]. Discourse and actor analyses can reveal links between positions, diagnoses, assessments and arguments on the one hand and actors and interests on the other hand. To reconstruct the process in which techno-futures and characterizations of NEST originate, appropriate methods of qualitative social research can be employed. Inasmuch as these techno-futures are created by scientific institutes (e.g. model-based energy scenarios), the methods of social science laboratory research can also be applied. Reconstructive techniques from the philosophy of science can also contribute to clarifying the origination process and to breaking down the techno-futures into their components. This process of a deconstruction of integrated techno-futures into their original components (see [GRU 11c, DIE 14] for energy futures) contributes substantially to a better understanding since the results of the process of construction responds in a sensitive manner to the selected components. The focus of interest thus shifts to the question as to the reasons why certain components (e.g. assumptions) were chosen instead of others. Metaphorically, one could say that this hermeneutic deconstruction downright demystifies techno-visionary futures and brings them down to earth. Yet, this demystification is precisely what is necessary for a democratic debate to function.

9.3.3. NEST meaning: understanding content

Techno-visionary futures refer, as we have seen in the case studies, to a distant future, often decades away, and exhibit revolutionary features in terms of technology and culture, human behavior, and individual and social issues. It is, of course, key for a hermeneutic orientation to understand the contents of these techno-futures and the characterizations given today for NEST which are regarded to make those futures possible. The content of assignments of meaning comprises knowledge about their cognitive and normative claims as well as about their historical and cultural backgrounds. To uncover these dimensions by using hermeneutics means first to ask about the forms in which techno-futures are present and being communicated. These forms – texts, narratives, diagrams, pictures, art, etc. – are the object of scrutiny in this branch of a comprehensive hermeneutic analysis.

In the debates on NEST fields, we can find a great variety of texts in which narratives of the futures as well as characterizations and definitions are transported (see Chapters 5–8 with many references to those texts). There are numerous stories about future worlds in which the driving force comes from technological progress in form of NEST developments. Well-known authors such as Jules Verne, Stanislaw Lem and Michael Crichton have turned this effort into a genre of its own, namely, science fiction literature. In the NEST fields, the futurists around Ray Kurzweil und Eric Drexler must be mentioned who have also published primary texts. The founding document of the more recent debate about human enhancement [ROC 02] is also a text. Counter-visions such as those of Bill Joy [JOY 00] and Jean-Pierre Dupuy [DUP 04] are also available as texts. Texts with narratives, arguments, expectations and fears are, not surprisingly, key objects of study in a hermeneutic analysis of techno-futures and proposals how to characterize NEST and how to determine their novelty.

A second efficacious form consists of vivid representations and other artistic formats [SCH 16]. There is no controversy over the fact that the futuristic-looking images from the early phase of nanotechnology played an important role in arousing interest as well as exciting fascination [STO 00, NOR 03]. A large number of images – showing for example humans with neuro-prostheses or cyborgs – are employed in the public discussions about human enhancement. Synthetic biology has motivated, in particular, filmmakers to join in artistic debates. Filmmakers have also taken up ideas from artificial intelligence and robotics and turned them into fantastic stories about possible future worlds. This form of techno-future reaches its audience via different channels than texts. It presumably plays an important role in public perception (see Chapter 6 for the field of autonomous robots). It is also the task of hermeneutics to explicate the messages and the accompanying ambivalences transported in artistic media such as pictures or films.

Closer to the world of scientific techno-futures are two other forms of presentation, namely, diagrams and tables. Although they can hardly be found in the NEST fields, they are a standard format in other fields, such as energy scenarios [GRU 11c]. Usually, certain developments are plotted on the time scale in these diagrams. Diagrams are also employed occasionally in the debates on transhumanism, posthumanism and technological singularity [KUR 05] to plot the growth in knowledge against time and very graphically show the projected singularity. While such images could also be presented as text, the effect of a graphic presentation in which the message can be recognized at a glance is a very different one. Understanding such diagrams means – in the case of scientific diagrams – understanding the underlying quantitative and frequently mathematically formulated models. In other cases, such as in that of singularity, the character of diagrams is rather illustrative and metaphoric; such diagrams are images more than scientific presentations.

In all of these (and possibly other) representations of techno-futures and other ideas of what NEST could help to achieve, there are questions regarding the origin and history of the elements employed. With regard to textual narration, familiar approaches of hermeneutics can be applied, e.g. from linguistics or cultural sciences. With regard to artistic formats, one can analogously ask about the origin of the chosen stylistic devices, just as one can ask about the transfer of connotations and meanings from other fields into the world of NEST that results from the formation of analogies. Frequently, such transfers also implicitly deliver intuitive attributions of meaning and associations, and it is only the explication of the latter that makes it possible to make them the object of a readily understood debate.

The hermeneutic analysis of techno-futures as well as of characterizations and definitions should result in a better understanding of the origins and roots of those assignments of meaning. It includes uncovering the underlying cultural elements which often form the background of normative attitudes and value assignments. An example of this type of analysis was given by Macnaghten et al. [MAC 10, VON 10]. One of the findings was that cultural narratives such as “opening Pandora’s box” and “be careful what you wish for” form deep-ranging patterns of perception in the visionary public debates and concerns (about nanotechnology, in this case study). In synthetic biology, not only grand narratives such as the Baconian idea of full human dominion over nature play a role but also the narrative of a reconciliation of human civilization and nature [GRU 16a], both of them being deeply rooted in European history of thought. Cultural sciences and literary studies can help to uncover these patterns and clarify the meanings and backgrounds being transported. Obviously, these debates and issues also have a historical dimension. The study of the production, spread and utilization of techno-futures in different epochs in the past can assist us in identifying the respective mainstream zeitgeist predominant in a specific present. This identification can help reflection on the predispositions imprinted by the respective dominant zeitgeist patterns and correcting the alternative options and perspectives based on them. This field calls for interdisciplinary research in, among others, cultural science, history and language studies, in which each discipline can employ its own methods.

A hermeneutic turn in the analysis of techno-futures and other meaning-giving entities also makes it possible to connect to entirely different traditions of reflection. The “narrative hermeneutics” of Paul Ricoeur [RIC 81] refers to Heidegger and Husserl and puts the focus anthropologically on the homo narrans [NIL 99]. Telling stories about the future and about ongoing and fascinating but at the same time strange scientific development is understood as an anthropologically essential property of humans [RAD 11, GRA 15]. It is understood as a reflective art of interpretation belonging to human beings, i.e. beings linked to an existential narrative with a primacy of the future [GRA 15, p. 201]. It deals – entirely in the sense of the analysis presented in this volume – with an approach to allow extracting orientation from the field of present stories about the future without any attempt at anticipating or predicting it.

9.3.4. NEST meaning: understanding diffusion and impact

The communication of techno-futures and also of proposals for defining NEST and their novelties constitutes an intervention in ongoing communications. It can cause a debate to take a turn and influence decisions, possibly even independently of how consistent, plausible or scientifically well-founded the respective futures are [GRU 07a]. The reception of George Orwell’s novel 1984 or the consequences of the report of the Club of Rome on The Limits to Growth from 1972 are familiar examples of this kind of phenomenon. It is this interventionist character that leads to the well-known effects of self-fulfilling or self-destructive prognoses [MER 48, WAT 85]. It points out the special responsibility that is tied to the creation and communication of statements about the meaning of NEST. The game of playing with techno-futures in social debates on technology, either with warnings or hopes, and with statements on revolutionary and disruptive characterizations of NEST is correspondingly also a power game where values, interests and intentions are linked with specific techno-futures. The intervention can consist of intentionally influencing the mood of society or political decisions in one direction or another. Techno-futures thus may have an instrumental character in social debates. Knowledge of the motives and interests of the participating actors is therefore an essential aspect of a comprehensive understanding (see also section 9.3.2).

Techno-visionary futures as well as proposals to understand NEST by characterizing them function as a medium in which debates are conducted at very different levels and between very different actors and in which ultimately an opinion is formed and a decision may be made [GRU 12a, GRU 13a]. This applies to social debates about technology, such as in the context of the future energy supply, to political decision-making processes, such as for promoting research, and to arranging the agenda of further research and development of technology (section 1.3.2). The topic of real impacts of assigning meaning to NEST covers a variety of subtopics, which can be described by asking the following questions [GRU 14b]:

  • – what impact do techno-visionary futures and other meaning-assigning activities have on politicians and other actors in the overall governance of visionary technosciences?
  • – which aspects, properties or attributes of these meaning-giving elements such as techno-visionary futures have a crucial bearing on public opinion-forming and political decision-making processes?
  • – how do visions enter other subsystems of society such as the economy, the political system or cultural institutions like education or popular entertainment (films and books)?
  • – how are narratives of the future and characterizations of NEST absorbed and digested by potential users?
  • – how are techno-visionary futures and NEST characterizations perceived, communicated and used in public debate? And what is the impact of those communications?
  • – in particular, how and to what degree do techno-visionary futures and NEST characterizations structure public debate, influence the determination as to what is regarded as risk or opportunity, and decide on technology acceptance or rejection?
  • – how do techno-visionary futures and NEST characterizations develop over time, affected by making use of them but also modified in the interplay with competing proposals?
  • – what can be said about the role of scientific policy advice (i.e. parliamentary technology assessment [GRU 09a] and expert groups) as an intermediary channel for transferring meaning from the academic to the political arena [GRU 13a]?

To answer questions about the biography of meaning-giving interventions and the consequences of their diffusion and communication, an interdisciplinary procedure employing various types of methods appears sensible. The empirical social sciences can contribute to clarifying the communication of techno-futures and NEST descriptions by using media analyses or sociological discourse analysis and generate, for example, maps or models of the respective constellations of actors. Political science, especially the study of governance, can analyze the way in which the assignment of meaning exerts influence on political decision-making processes, for example via political consultation. In this way, a complete picture of the biography of the different proposals of how to assign meaning to NEST can be created. It should include, for example, diffusion processes into different spheres of society, migrations of the techno-futures, related shifts in meaning and perception, consequences for, for example, social perception and political decision-making processes, and, if applicable, processes of the disappearance of the respective techno-future from the debate.

In view of the experience of the last 15 years, it can be expected that comparative approaches in particular hold the promise of new knowledge. These can, for example, compare the stories about meaning of various fields of NEST with one another, determine the common features and the differences, and inquire about the causes. In the case studies, for example, it became evident that there is a structural difference between the histories of nanotechnology (Chapter 5) and robotics (Chapter 6). While nanotechnology initially appeared to be the disruptive technology par excellence and with effort had to be normalized by attributions of meaning, robots were normalized practically in advance by science fiction literature and films. Robots entered society in this way even before they came to exist in reality with the anticipated functions and meanings.

Comparative studies might also result in interesting insights in a cultural or religious regard. The relationship to technology and technological progress is, as is known, dependent on cultural predispositions and traditions. Questions that are certainly relevant in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized include how this dependence is reflected in debates over the meaning of NEST, whose intercultural conflicts and differences will become visible in this connection, and how we can deal with it.

9.4. Reflection and epilogue

This book now reaches its ending. The conclusion is formed by suggestions as to how a hermeneutic assessment on the basis of empirical but also interpretative research can help us to understand our understanding of the creation and spread of the meaning of NEST. This understanding is no end in itself. In the background, there is always the question of what a better understanding of these processes can achieve with regard to the transparent, informed, reflected and democratic shaping of present and future NEST. Let me at this point give this reminder of the five starting points or hypotheses given in Chapter 1:

  • – The attribution of meaning to new technology plays a large role in the NEST debates and in the respective deliberation processes and controversies; subjects of RRI debates are not new technologies as such but are rather sociotechnical meanings assigned to them;
  • – Techno-visionary futures and other types of narratives of the future constitute a major medium of assigning meaning to new technology; they usually cannot anticipate future developments but fuel current and ongoing debates and controversies to form opinions and to make decisions today;
  • – Debates on the definition and characterization of NEST are highly relevant to assign not only scientific and technological, but also ethical and social meaning to them and should thus be included in a hermeneutic enlightenment of the emergence of meaning;
  • – Orientation for society and decision makers is needed because the assignment of meaning may have major consequences already today in spite of lack of knowledge about expectable future consequences;
  • – The hermeneutical perspective will investigate and uncover meanings assigned to NEST in order to increase transparency expecting that democratic deliberation and argument-based reasoning will benefit.

On this basis, I have argued that the expansion of the object of responsibility is required beyond a consequentialist view of the future impacts of NEST. This is the central message of this book (Chapter 2). If, however, the acts of creating and communicating meaning to NEST are also supposed to be handled in RRI debates, there are questions as to the adequate constellation of such an extension. Against the backdrop of the EEE model of responsibility (Chapter 2, [GRU 14c]) with its combination of empirical, ethical and epistemological elements, it becomes clear that constellations of responsibility encompass many actors and groups of actors. They include, in addition to NEST researchers, civic organizations, funding agencies, members of parliaments, experts from technology assessment and applied ethics, citizens, stakeholders and many more, depending on the respective context. It is for this reason that we must speak of a co-responsibility, which, however, must first be spelled out (see for synthetic biology [GRU 12e, GRU 14c]).

A few central results of the studies in the book and the conclusions drawn from them are:

  • – conflicts over the meanings of NEST prepare the setting for the RRI debates. They determine, for example, what is discussed as being a chance or as a risk before it is possible to speak about their ethical consideration. Ethical questions themselves are thus not the issue. At issue are questions as to how ethical issues can be raised at all;
  • – central elements in these debates over meaning (that precede ethical discussions) are techno-visionary futures on the one hand and definitions and characterizations of NEST on the other hand;
  • – the attributions of meaning to NEST are the most extreme point that can be reached in an upstream movement in RRI debates at all. It does not go any further because it is only the attributions of meaning that constitute interesting objects for the RRI debates;
  • – debates over meaning thus exert real influence and should not be underestimated. They are far more than just the arts or features section, which is precisely the reason that they must be made the object of debates over responsibility;
  • – the Collingridge dilemma [COL 80, LIE 10] has been suspended by the extension of the reach of responsibility to include the current consequences of present-day attributions of meaning. The argument that we know so little about distant consequences and therefore cannot provide orientation does not apply to this form of responsibility;
  • – debates over the meaning of NEST do not belong to the engineers and scientists. They require the active participation of society precisely because they reveal far-reaching ideas about futures or about present-day values;
  • – hermeneutic analysis and assessment have the potential to clarify the processes of the creation and spread of rival suggestions about meaning, their communication and the competition between them, and thus to inform democratic debates about the epistemic, cognitive, historical, cultural and ethical backgrounds of the attributions of meaning.

At the very end, the question remains: what specifically can be learned from such research and assessment? In any case, direct support of decision makers in the sense of classical decision-making support cannot be expected. Learning could only contribute to a better understanding of the mental, cultural, social or philosophical background of the debate, the options and arguments presented, and the narratives disseminated and contested around the NEST under consideration. Making implicit backgrounds of alternatives and narratives explicit may contribute to a better and more transparent embedding of the options under consideration in their – philosophical, cultural, ethical – context. It serves rational reasoning and debates in deliberative democracy by providing the “grand picture” more comprehensively and thus allows for giving the respective NEST a place in the broader picture.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.227.111.208