Voices of the "Underinformed" and the "Misguided"

  Debra Bennett-Woods
  Regis University

In his recently published, expertly researched, and generally very informative book Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz, David Berube (2006) suggests, "third culture intellectuals, need to address the public. For that to happen, the story needs to be deconstructed and vetted, especially those stories told outside the venues of science and by the underinformed and misguided" (p. 47). Later in the book, Berube seems to include among the tellers of these stories a group he labels "miscreants" (p. 308), defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (1973) as villains, evil doers, infidels, and heretics, whose protests range from the negative impacts of globalization to genetically engineered foods and the Iraq war. In this brief statement, Berube appears to stand as just one of many in academia, politics, and the economic elite who implicitly and explicitly reveals a troubling bias that must be fully challenged before we can really do justice to the societal dialogue we see promoted, by those same academics, as necessary with respect to nanoscience and nanotechnology.

Exactly who are "the underinformed and misguided" to whom Berube and others refer? First, they seem to include nearly anyone who exists outside the "venues of science," a category that clearly gives primacy to an elite, largely self-defined and boundaried subculture and its particular version of truth. The venues of science are filled with scientists and their supporters who see the world in terms of largely derivative theory, hypotheses, and data-driven logic that values the finite, the observable, and the measurable over that which tends to defy prediction, direct measurement, or inordinate complexity. Validity and reliability are narrowly constructed concepts that theoretically define the point at which something can be disseminated as useful knowledge. In this sphere of "truth," "right" action and ³right² thought ideally align themselves with the known, the predictable, the observable, the reliable, the verifiable, and, most importantly, that which the scientists themselves, via peer review and other determinants of the scientific culture, have deemed suitable for consideration.

There is great value in the intellectual assumptions of the scientific tradition, developed and refined in the centuries since the Enlightenment. Few would argue the need to consider the objectively knowable in any decision making process. However, there is a worrisome tendency to downplay the fact that scientists themselves are often underinformed in their interpretations and misguided in their conclusions. The very definition of theory warns of the immense challenges faced in the pursuit of certainty and of the need to maintain adequate intellectual humility in the face of a complex universe.

Nonetheless, the plethora of calls for public education and engagement regarding nanotechnology are routinely accompanied by the assumption, both explicit and implicit, that it is the scientists who need to be conducting and engaging in the dialogue, lest we risk the voices of "the underinformed or misguided" from getting too much attention or gathering a critical mass. There is little or no suggestion that, perhaps, the scientists should be on the receiving end of any of the education. By extension, this, in effect, renders the ensuing conversation less of a dialogue and more of hybrid lecture/public relations campaign.

If anyone should recognize this dynamic for what it is -- and conversely what it is not -- it is social scientists, whose focus is the fuzzy interface between people and their world. Social and environmental activists, politicians, regulators, artists, and the media are routinely labeled as "misguided," yet history has all too often revealed the wisdom of their causes in due time. Abolitionists and activists for women's rights were historically accused of being misguided, as were regulatory attempts to address global warming were and are still (although much less often) accused of being uninformed, and others -- ranging from science fiction writers to the media -- are labeled sensationalist purveyors of misinformation based on misguided intentions or ignorance. In all cases, the real fear of those who label others as ³misguided² is that of the public tying its star to the "wrong" wagon and interfering with the agenda of those who seek to dominate the conversation and go unchallenged.

No one wants a policy agenda driven by sheer fantasy or unfounded fear. We have experienced the poor outcomes from to decision-making based largely on political gain and the limited and self-interested agendas of the powerful. Yet neither do we want a policy agenda driven by narrowly defined interests that ignore the admittedly messier, more subjective, and more malleable realities of culture, values and the varied human perceptions of reality. Perhaps a more constructive way to approach the need for education and dialogue in the public sphere is to distinguish between the scientifically informed and the legitimate other-informed and other-guided voices that exist in the vast netherworld between ungrounded fantasy and the scientific model.

At least two tests can be proposed for examining the legitimacy of such voices. The first is common sense and the second is wisdom. Common sense tells us that claims from either end of the nanotechnology support/non-support continuum need to be substantiated with verifiable information and relevant precedent. The common sense adage, "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is", can also be paired with "every cloud has a silver lining" and "for every action there is a reaction," to illustrate what every thinking person already knows about technology and its tendency to solve some problems while also creating others.

Common sense also requires informed decision-making with "informed" being defined in a manner that requires transparency on the part of all stakeholders. The "underinformed" cannot know what the "experts" are not willing to tell them. Finally, common sense demands that we be reasonably cautious in pursuing any technological breakthrough with the potential for widespread societal impact and disruption. Most problems are easier avoided than solved after the fact, and, while not every problem can be anticipated, concluding that some nanoparticles might constitute a health risk or that entirely new approaches to manufacturing intended to enhance efficiency and lower cost might prove economically disruptive, is hardly rocket science.

Therefore, the common sense test tells us that when any particular voice can be shown to be narrowly self-interested, overtly biased, closed to meaningful dialogue, or overly reliant on hyperbole and unsubstantiated or poorly supported claims, it should be confronted and labeled as such. However, even these voices should not be disregarded entirely, because they do, in fact, provide an important lens through which "truth" can be assessed. Instead of being dismissed out of hand, they should be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt."

Wisdom, on the other hand, encourages us to view the unknown with healthy skepticism and a dose of intellectual humility. Wisdom also tells us that reality is rarely straightforward. It defies prediction and that which is most important is often that which is least amendable to rational and objective analysis. At the same time, wisdom also teaches us the value of prior experience and the ability to anticipate likely outcomes based on an imperfect-but-long-standing awareness of human needs, motives, and responses. Experience shows us the power of systemic change and the likelihood that short-term gains may look very different in a long-term view. When commentators, such as Berube, caution against focusing on long-term impacts that may never materialize in favor of shorter-term concerns, they ignore the evolutionary momentum that has characterized technology throughout history. Berube cautions that focusing too much on the distant future becomes a distraction from critical, shorter-term questions. However, the companion argument is equally compelling. Addressing narrowly defined issues in piecemeal fashion, as they arise, can lead to failing to see the forest for the trees and to a false sense of confidence that the really big questions, situated in the longer term, will simply work themselves out in due time.

Therefore, the test of wisdom encourages us to seek voices that readily acknowledge complexity and that represent holistic perspectives of both the short and long term. Wisdom also values voices that are not afraid to explore the vast territory of human nature and the profound questions of human purpose, value, and meaning. These are questions that have to be answered collectively and that simply cannot be entrusted to the rightfully-valued-but-inherently-limited voices of science, economics, and politics.

In point of fact, we are all underinformed and frequently misguided when it comes to understanding, appreciating, and accommodating our essential human nature and the challenges of living in community. Yet, it is this very human nature that science and technology serve, and dominant voices do not serve it well when they treat the public as either helpless beneficiaries of their benevolent paternalism or, worse yet, impersonal barriers to be manipulated and marginalized in the pursuit of their own ends. The penchant for labeling complex problems as intractable and setting them aside for someone else to solve at some future point becomes riskier by the day as the pace and complexity of the human enterprise expands exponentially. If there has ever been a time in human history that calls for an active and informed citizenship, it is now, and it begins with respectful recognition of at least a few of those voices so often disregarded as "uninformed and misguided."

Deb Bennett-Woods, Ed. D., is an associate professor and the Director of the Department of Health Care Ethics in the Rueckert-Hartman School for Health Professions at Regis University. She is also a Fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society. Her current teaching and scholarly interests emphasize the area of emerging technologies, with particular attention to the health care industry, and she is currently authoring a book entitled Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society, forthcoming in late 2007.

References
American Heritage Dictionary. (1973). William Morris (Ed.). Boston: American Heritage Publishing & Houghton Mifflin.
Berube, David M. (2006). Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.