I'm a longstanding researcher on issues of science and technology governance. This has involved serving in many governmental science advisory processes. Most recently, I've been working for a few years in the ESRC Climate Geoengineering Governance project. I'm sorry not to have been able to contribute to this group before. But both the tone and the thrust of Andrew Lockley's post demand some moderating comment.
This is not only because of the inherent gravity of the topic. It is also because of the importance of this discussion group itself and its members, as a way to foster healthier general debate on this issue. It doesn't help anyone if this group becomes caught up in its own idiosyncratic partisan world. So I hope this bit of reflection is helpful. As in all other policy areas, challenges of orientation, prioritisation and resource allocation in science and innovation are inherently political. Climate geoengineering is no exception. Questions over whether or not - or in what manner or degree - to conduct research in this area are all based on contestible understandings of context and involve inherently political value judgements. All this is so, irrespective of how openly or rationally it is acknowledged. So, it seriously erodes credibility to suggest that even discussion of 'governance' is a matter for mockery. In a democracy, it is of course entirely legitimate for people to express in good faith whatever view they wish. It is intrinsic to the value of democracy, that such views will be judged according to the way they are framed, the quality of their argument and the particular interests and values they reflect. Members of this group should as much as any others, expect - and welcome - being held accountable to these principles. But it seems from the post and many comments that there is a feeling that these particular parochial enthusiasms should be exempt from critical scrutiny. Again, this is also self-defeating. For my part, I have made no secret of my own strong scepticism over the case for prioritising climate geoengineering research. Among other things, this reflects decades of study and experience of the dynamics of science and technology. Crucial issues that are often neglected concern the ways in which directions for research are frequently historically path dependent, often prone to lock-in and typically (whether or not deliberate or acknowledged) strongly shaped by power. A host of very well documented and understood forces act to reinforce these dynamics - including irrational neglect of uncertainties. My own argument would be that these well documented political and economic dynamics in research and innovation are especially problematic in a field like climate geoengineering. But I freely concede that - despite the decades of research and study on which it is based - my own particular view is also framed by politically contestible values and assumptions. I am happy to be accountable for these and not try to avoid responsibility by resorting to dismissive language, invoking spurious authority - or intolerantly asserting apocalyptic urgency. Why is it that so many in favour of geoengineering - like religious fundamentalists - depart so strikingly from this kind of reasonable style?. It is a matter of discretion how much the above-mentioned crucial social realities of science and technology are taken into account. But it does not inspire confidence if they are simply ignored. So despite being on the other side of the argument, I have some friendly advice for those - like Andrew - who would like to be persuasive in putting their own case for prioritising research in climate geoengineerng. Ease up on the insults to those with legitimately differing views. Cut back on the hyperbole and be more symmetrical in taking account of pros and cons. Be prepared to be more humble in respecting uncertainties and ambiguities. Acknowledge that the key issues are political as much as technical. Avoid impressions of arrogance in appropriating the right to hold or express opinions. Pay more attention to the style and content of arguments. Question how rational it appears, to simply dismiss the importance for considering the social and political contexts in which geoengineering research and development would actually take place. And please don't undermine science in general by rhetorically dragooning it in, as if it uniquely supports a specific partisan position or interest. I give this advice because I believe that the issues at stake far transcend the success or failure of any particular perspective in this debate. What lies at threat more broadly are the quality and health of modern democratic practice in all its forms - and the role of science itself as a vital element in our culture. In the end, this is one of the principal grounds for concern over climate geoengineering - and the kinds of discourse and social relation that it already too often engenders. Sincerely, Andy Stirling -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
