Friends,
It is an old problem that scientists working in biology usually have very little knowledge in social sciences and philosophy. This chapter in the ASK-FORCE forum wants to give some hints about bridging the gaps.
My wife, Dr. Biljana Papazova Ammann and I have published a text about the philosophy of management methods under the following title:

Ammann, K. & Papazova Ammann, B. (2004)
Factors Influencing Public Policy Development in Agricultural Biotechnology. In RISK ASSESSMENT OF TRANSGENIC CROPS. (ed S. Shantaram), Vol. 9, pp. 1552. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.P. Christou & H. Klee Handbook of Plant Biotechnology,
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Wiley/Factors-Discourse-Wiley.pdf

It opens perspectives in discursive methods in the present day difficult debate on biotechnology. We do have hopes that the debate can still be enhanced, and we are convinced that the new forum ASK-FORCE will help to steer the debate away from the usual tennis match attitudes.

Clearly, some activists are deviating from the scientific facts, are often ignoring them, this has to be fiercely contradicted. But we should not forget about this fight that the world as a whole cannot be explained solely by scientific facts. Culture, Art etc are existing and living in other realms. This is in short words the explanation for the basic anxiety of a lot of lay people, who feel threatened by scientists intending to monopolize the debate on biotech, this is perceived by many as an intention of scientists to monopolize the whole debate. Active listening (a good American tradition) will help here, combined with the methods described in the above article on Discourse.

There are two key elements one should focus on, when designing discourse:
1. Wicked Problems, see a text written by Jeff Conklin
http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf
instead of an explanation, here the motto in Jeffs text:
Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.—Laurence J. Peter

2. Symmetry of ignorance, see all explanations under:
Fischer, G. (2000)
Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13, 7-8, pp 527-537
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/Fischer-Symmetry-Ignorance-2000.pdf

3. A seminal paper written in 1970 (!)
Kunz, W. & Rittel, H. (1970)
Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Papers Institute of Urban & Regional Development UC Berkeley, 121, pp 1-10 http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP-131.pdf
Horst W. Rittel and Frank West Churchman can be seen as the founders of the Systems Aproach in Debates and Decision Making.

Klaus Ammann
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The Age of Miracles

                              ————-

Lafeu: They say miracles are past; and we have our philosophical persons, to make modern and familiar, things supernatural and causeless. Hence is it that we make trifles of terrors, ensconcing ourselves into seeming knowledge, when we should submit ourselves to an unknown fear.

Parolles: Why, ‘tis the rarest argument of wonder that hath shot out in our latter times.

Bertram: And so ‘tis.

—Shakespeare, W. “All’s Well That Ends Well,” Act 2, Scene III.

“If scientists do not learn to respect the realms of non-scientific knowledge, they will indirectly build up a public resistance to the very science that they are preaching, the irony of this situation is somehow hilarious and tragic at the same time.”

—Ammann, K. & Papazova Ammann, B. (2004) Factors Influencing Public Policy Development in Agricultural Biotechnology. In Risk Assessment of Transgenic Crops. (ed S. Shantaram), Vol. 9, pp. 1552. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.P. Christou & H. Klee Handbook of Plant Biotechnology.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

—Clarke, Arthur C. “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)

                          ————-

There was an age of miracles, and the miracles are recorded in ancient books.

Thereafter, it was often said that the age of miracles had passed; that modern science had usurped, and rendered mundane, what once was the province of the gods. That age has also passed.

From Shakespeare’s time to modern time, a reasonably intelligent individual with an average education could understand the technology he used, and explain it in mundane terms. What is more, if that technology failed, the average, motivated person could even repair it. This includes plowshares and pruning hooks, electrical lighting, telephones and televisions, automobiles and tractors, and plant and animal germplasm.

But this is the postmodern time. The average urban house is not large enough to accomodate the scientists and technicians it would require to explain and repair the technology employed in that house. Indeed, that house and its environs would not be large enough to produce a computer chip for one cellular telephone in that house. And nobody bothers repairing damaged computer chips. The most skilled artisan would not even make the attempt.

Thus, the age of miracles has returned. Or the age of magic. There are forces at work we cannot explain or manage, even though we make use of them. As a culture, how can we put this in context?

Ammann et. al. suggest that “[t]he divide between science and moralities (including, for example, public trust, value-laden knowledge) is growing dramatically, and there seems to be no control over the process any more.”

There never has been any “control over the process” of managing “the divide between science and moralities,” but attempts to achieve that are recorded as infamy.

The divide between science and the moralities has taken society down a new, untrodden path. For a while, we referred to to gods or magic to explain the things we use, but did not understand. Later, we exercised personal ownership over the technology made use of. Now we use things we cannot understand or fix, which makes personal ownership of technology more than somewhat chimerical. We cannot cast blame on gods for those things that surpass our understanding, so we refer to humans instead—and they are, for better or worse, human. And no single one of them understands what is going on, so we refer to institutions. And institutions, for better or worse, remain stubbornly human.

In the case of agricultural biotechnology, many seek to explain novel developments by making an accusation that fellow humans are “playing god.” This may strike some as disingenuous, but it should not be surprising. Any human, asked to explain the miracles and magic of technology, will fail the test of godhood. This is made worse, not better, by the refusal of scientists to dabble in things such as necromancy.

So I agree with Ammann et. al that “[w]hat we need to do is develop a new *** metaphor for a procedural language that gives us the chance to reconcile contrasting cultures and interests.” This might be achieved through a “reconciliatory process,” as the authors suggest, but the path of cultural progress is bloody and strewn with bones. Along that path, we will have to reconcile our notions of humanity, godhood, and what is truly divine.

###

Thereafter, it was often said that the age of miracles had passed; that modern science had usurped, and rendered mundane, what once was the province of the gods. That age has also passed.

From Shakespeare’s time to modern time, a reasonably intelligent individual with an average education could understand the technology he used, and explain it in mundane terms. What is more, if that technology failed, the average, motivated person could even repair it. This includes plowshares and pruning hooks, electrical lighting, telephones and televisions, automobiles and tractors, and plant and animal germplasm.

(I do some consulting for a small sports apparel resource site)