2003
Many contemporary scholars argue that science communication needs to shift its portrayal of science from “truth” to “levels of confidence”. The public must understand science not as a discoverer of truth but as an assessor of risk and uncertainty, leading to technologies, or methods to minimize risk and narrow uncertainties. However, Jasanoff conceptualizes science and technology’s relationship with risk and uncertainty in a very different way that I believe could have transformative effects on the future of science communication.
As “technologies of hubris” science and technology have become proficient at characterizing and eliminating risk and uncertainty, but they aren’t perfect. In fact, they can generate more obscure risk and uncertainty with potential for greater catastrophic consequences. What is needed then, Jasanoff suggests, are “technologies of humility”, the functions of which are
“to make apparent the possibility of unforeseen consequences; to make explicit the normative that lurks within the technical; and to acknowledge from the start the need for plural viewpoints and collective learning”.
Scientific and technological activities need to be interrogated by the greatest multiplicity of perspectives first, before they proceed and alter society in unforeseen ways. These “technologies of humility” ultimately ask the following four essential questions: 1) what is the purpose; 2) who will be hurt; 3) who benefits; and 4) how can we know? This requires “different forms of engagement between experts, decision-makers, and the public”.
While Jasanoff does not mention science communication in this article, I believe that there is no better place to generate, test, and evaluate such participatory forms of co-creating and decision-making than science communication. Science communication scholars and practitioners exist precisely at the site of contact between science and society, understanding and building relationships with both parties. They’re used to playing the role of facilitator, bridge builder, communicator, and liaison. Maybe, science communication should task itself with implementing these “technologies of humility”.
Reference:
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.