Q5. There is anti-climax to the fact that the US started with the Technology Impact Assessment concepts and Europe subsequently adopted the concept? What has changed over time?
A lot has changed since the US Congress established and subsequently abolished the Office of Technology Assessment. TA has flourished in Europe, incorporating participatory methodologies whereby a wide range of stakeholders are able to take part in the assessment process. Civil Society Organisations are nowadays key stakeholders in S&T debates and as such are also a legitimate part of the TA process. This reflects the changing dynamics of the modern societies that have become much more informed about S&T developments and more interactive in social debates. This reality cannot be disregarded in policy making, whether dealing with S&T or any other policy issue.
Q6. Where do you find Europe in context of Assessment tools and techniques and advantages that Europe has had over the period?
As mentioned above, European TA is more inclusive and interactive than the original model developed in the USA. There are a number of methodologies and techniques that have been developed in Europe to account for this new type of TA. These range from citizens’ juries, to consensus conferences, to scenario workshops, etc. all of them designed to incorporate a wide range of perspectives that represent the public debates as they actually take place.
There is a tendency to call this a more “democratic” S&T decision-making model. I would call it simply more comprehensive. Even less “democratic” systems can benefit from having more inclusion in their assessment processes. After all, citizens are the core of every standard governance system and their perspectives must be heard or there will certainly be a reaction.
Q7. How do you put the values as key determinants for future technological advancements?
Values are the building blocks of behaviour and as such, are behind all decisions that we take at any point in time. S&T is not an exception. S&T strategies are based on social values and so is the direction of development. We have done some work comparing the values systems in Europe, India and China and their incorporation in S&T policy. We found a direct link between values and S&T developments at the national level but also interesting results when it comes to comparing the various value systems.
Despite the first impressions that show incompatible values amongst the various cultures, we found certain compatibility when seen as a “continuum”. For instance, the standard European approach that focuses on individual rights appears in direct contradiction with that of China. But, looking at cases of application, we soon find that there is neither a purely “individual rights” approach in Europe nor a “group rights” approach in China. They both prioritise one value over the other, but they follow policies that oscillate between the two.
Overall in TA, the study of values helps us enhance our ability to work together and produces more relevant results for policy making at the international level.
Q8. What are key ethical challenges to science and technology projects of future, given the new developments of gene edited babies gaining the currency in China?
The announcement of the first “genetically manipulated” babies in Shenzhen this year has been a watershed moment for S&T ethics. The repercussions will be felt for a long time, in my view. I happened to have a more personal experience of this, as I was presenting at a genomics conference (ICG13) in Shenzhen, two weeks prior to the genome editing announcement, whereby I warned the delegates that genome editing will be a very problematic technology in China and beyond. Little did I know, that two weeks after, my “prophecy” would be realised in the most spectacular manner!
I could say a lot about this case but one thing is certain. This type of development is not about whether it is ethical or unethical. It is about what kind of ethics or morality we want to follow. It is about what is right and what is wrong in research and the answer is not straightforward. For instance, is it ethical or unethical to want to enhance the capability of human nature? Is it morally right or wrong to do so by modifying the human genome? I strongly believe that the answer should be given by society itself, not a few “experts”.
Q9. What role do you see of government and private sector collaborating in future on any of key scientific developments? Are there any lessons learnt in past?
The private sector is leading S&T developments worldwide. It spends, on average, two-thirds of the total Research and Development expenditure of the average developed the economy. Moreover, the private sector leads the effort of translate research into products and services. It is, of course, imperative that governments have a close relationship with the private sector in S&T research – for instance by developing viable Public-Private Partnerships in bringing the fruits of research to society. This is, of course, easier said than done, as there are many challenges to be dealt with in this respect, the biggest of which is perhaps incompatibilities in their respective research culture. Public research has different aims and pace than private research but we have also seen very good practices around the world, that have brought great results. Here, there is a lot we could learn from the experiences of our US colleagues.
Q10. How do you consider Impact Assessment instruments that can help scaling up of ongoing S&T projects and newer areas of application of Assessment techniques?
TA is a dynamic endeavour. It has changed through time and it is still changing, along with society. What is possible today with the penetration of digitalisation, was not possible a few years ago. As we are moving towards a Global TA, we are faced with additional parameters that we need to take into consideration, such as different values systems, policy paradigms, and development trajectory. These will change TA further but it will make it more relevant to the work that is taking place in India and Europe.
There is a host of areas that TA methodologies should scale up to, from energy to automation to genomics, covering almost every main S&T development area. Of particular interest, I find the main translational infrastructure projects that we witness, such as the One Belt-One Road promoted by the Chinese government and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor promoted by the Indian government. They are both prime examples of the need for a Global TA. I very much hope, that in the future, they will be seen as examples of successful international cooperations, that have true value and incorporated the views of their societies and people.
Biography of Dr. Miltos Ladikas
Dr. Miltos Ladikas holds senior research positions at the Institute of Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, and at the Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, UK.
He has studied Social Psychology at the London School of Economics (M.Sc., PhD) with a focus on Societal Aspects in Biotechnology Developments. Since 1996, he has held research positions in UK and Germany specialising in science and society issues. He has coordinated a number of international projects in the areas of science and technology policy, technology assessment, ethics of scientific developments, public perceptions in science and technology, genetically modified foods and access to pharmaceuticals.
He advises the European Commission, the European Research Council, the European & Developing Countries Clinical Countries Partnership, and a number of National Research Funds, on socio-ethical issues in research.
His current work focuses on Global aspects of Technology Assessment, Responsible Innovation, Ethics in Science and Technology Policy, as well as, Science Diplomacy.
He has a long-lasting collaboration with Chinese Government think-tanks and institutes and has been instrumental in promoting Europe-China science in society collaborations. Amongst others, he is the editor of “Embedding society in science & technology policy: European and Chinese perspectives” and “Science & Technology Governance and Ethics: A Global Perspective from Europe, India, and China”. For more details see: http://www.itas.kit.edu/english/staff_ladikas_miltos.php
Link of his Book titled – ‘Science and Technology Governance and Ethics’ - A Global Perspective from Europe, India, and China, Edited jointly by Miltos Ladikas, Sachin Chaturvedi, Yandong Zhao, and Dirk Stemerding https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-14693-5.pdf
Highlights of the Interview with Dr. Miltos Ladikas
The translational infrastructure projects such as the One Belt-One Road promoted by China and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor promoted by India are both prime examples of the need for a Global Technology Assessment and successful international cooperations, that have truly value and incorporated the views of their societies and people.
In terms of TA, the Indian government has attempted to institutionalise it, over the past 20 years, with a creation of some very good research centres. For instance, the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTAD), or the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), are doing great work in the area.
Indian colleagues have little difficulty in adapting to European S&T systems and vice versa. Unlike with other Asian colleagues, when collaborating with India, we usually do not have to spend as much time trying to understand each other’s terminology or working system. Our S&T conceptual framework is interchangeable and therefore, there is little wonder why India is so good in exporting services to Europe. What works for the Indian consumer, works usually also for the European one.
The announcement of the first “genetically manipulated” babies in Shenzhen this year has been a watershed moment for S&T ethics. The repercussions will be felt for a long time, in my view. I happened to have a more personal experience of this, as I was presenting at a genomics conference (ICG13) in Shenzhen, two weeks prior to the genome editing announcement, whereby I warned the delegates that genome editing will be a very problematic technology in China and beyond. Little did I know, that two weeks after, my “prophecy” would be realised in the most spectacular manner!
The private sector is leading S&T developments worldwide. It spends, on average, two thirds of the total Research and Development expenditure of the average developed economy. Moreover, the private sector leads the effort oftranslate research into products and services. It is of course imperative that governments have a close relationship with the private sector in S&T research – for instance by developing viable Public-Private Partnerships in bringing the fruits of research to society.