What Convergence is in the Cards for
Future Scientists[1]?
By Dr. Gregor Wolbring
for the conference Converging Science and Technologies:
Research Trajectories and Institutional Settings 14-15 May 2007;
In 2001 a workshop (from now on called NBIC workshop) organized by the USA National Science Foundation (NSF) and the USA Department of Commerce (DoC) (I was a member of that workshop) called CT for Improving Human Performance NANOTECHNOLOGY, BIOTECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE (NBIC) took place where the term NBIC was coined. This event seems to have triggered an increased academic, policy and public discourse around the term “CT” in particular and the nature and components of convergence in general.
On the one hand some might find it strange that a conference on “CT” takes place. The concept of convergence is nothing new. We have talked for a long time about transdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity asking for the convergence of different skills within a team, an individual, a project or a goal. Ancient Greeks used the terms techné, τέχνη[3] one of the two Greek root words which make up the term ‘technology’ to characterize a convergence of certain disciplines, skills and knowledge .
On the other hand this conference might raise the visibility of the importance of different needed convergences not just the convergences of NBIC technologies and to highlight some new convergence concepts. I highlight in this paper a) the deficiency of the NBIC convergence concept, b) different ways of convergence and c) introduce Ableism as a concept under which different ism’s converge.
My presentations will deal a) with the deficiency of the NBIC convergence concept, b) different ways of convergence scientist, policymaker, funders and numerous social groups have to exhibit, will c) introduce Ableism as a concept under which different ism’s converge and d) show how different types of convergences relate to the human performance enhancement goals and to my biochemistry work which is on thalidomide (contergan, softenon) and derivatives.
(I need to be as internally convergent in my work around governance of science and technology which I will not cover further as that is self evident.)
To get some idea for the land I performed some keyword combination
searches (table 1 appendix). Some of the findings are
1)
A
hierarchy exists among social groups covered/involved in the CT discourse
2)
biological
sciences gains 100 fold less hits than biotech related to converging technology
although a lot of convergence related to biological sciences and not just
biotechnology
3)
One
might think that the hits for the term
information technology are artificially high stemming from other IT
convergences however even with the inclusion of nanotechnology the ratio and
numbers between NBIC and converging technology does not change a lot.
4)
Patients
and animals get more hits than “the south”, ”the poor”, disabled people, people
with disabilities and indigenous people
5)
The
term transhumanist obtains 5-10 fold more hits than disabled people, people
with disabilities and indigenous people
6)
Artificial
Intelligence gains 20 times more hits
than indigenous people and 10 times more hits than people with disabilities
7)
Beside
environmentalism Isms are mostly non existent in the CT discourse
8)
GDP
obtains 10 times more hits than distributive justice and more or less equal hits
than human right in Google Scholar however human right has 10 times more hits
than GDP in Google while distributive justice has 10 times less hits than GDP
9)
We
see a hierarchy as to which academic fields obtains how many hits with ‘CT’
with medicine, law and economics obtaining as many hits as NBIC and with disability
studies, ability studies, environmental studies, cultural studies, women
studies obtaining only 1% to 0%.
10) The term military has double the hits than
peace in Google and 5 times more hits in Google scholar
11) Productivity, enhancements, health,
water, food, disease have 100 fold more hits than environmental safety, human
security, food security and social cohesion.
The NBIC workshop
intentionally narrow focus on improving human performances and on the nanoscale
interaction of NBIC(1) was perceived by many as to limited. The
Azonano webpage[4]
identifies three different takes on CT namely the USA NBIC viewpoint, a
European CT for the European Knowledge Society CTEKS
viewpoint (2) and an NGO BANG (bits, atoms, neurons
and genes) viewpoint(3). In
The NBIC workshop focus
on NBIC as the CT does not serve very well the continuous changes in science
and technology. Instead of using NBIC it would have been better to use the term
Nanoscale sciences and technologies if one wants to stay with the theme of
nanoscale which the NBIC label is based on and then list a variety of subfields
under that heading. That would have been more logical as
a) any one nanoscale
science and technology can generates products all by itself
b) there are more
nanoscale sciences and technologies than BIC such as engineering, environmental
sciences, chemistry
c) new sciences and
technologies are appearing which work on the nanoscale. Example here is
synthetic biology a field which was not on the radar screen in 2001.
d) in the public
discourse people see NBIC as four sciences and technologies converging
forgetting that the nanoscale is the prerequisite defining this
convergence.
Instead of
Converging technologies one could use the term Nano-convergence
NBIC is not only too
limited to cover the breadth of today’s and future nanoscale sciences and
technologies, NBIC is also too limited to capture the breadth of sciences and technologies involved in human
performance enhancement.
Chemistry and
material sciences are just two that work on the nanoscale and which are
involved in human performance enhancement New sciences are appearing which work
on the nanoscale and which are linked to human performance enhancement. Synthetic biology (4) that was not on the radar screen in 2001 is
one example (the linkage of synthetic biology with artificial life was one of
the focuses of discussion at the 10th Artificial Life
X Conference). Another examples is the field of Longevity,
Immortality Technology(5).
Longevity, immortality technology anti aging research gains more and
more international traction e.g.
Beside the intrinsic conceptual flaw of the
usage of NBIC even for the limited purpose of human performance enhancement, the
goal of the NBIC workshop does not serve the discourses around human security(6), social cohesion(7), global medical and social health(8) and the social well being of the global
population very well.
Other goals and convergences are needed to take
advantage of the possibilities opened up by future sciences and technologies.
Nanoscale sciences will influence and be
influence by other goals within and outside of the umbrella of performance
enhancement. Many nanoscale technologies and sciences increase and/or change
performances without changing humans but have impact on humans.
The Centre for Responsible
Nanotechnology sees molecular
manufacturing (MM) the ability to build products atom by atom to become a
reality by 2020 and they forecast a variety of social consequences.(9)
Cientifica an
influential consulting firm on nanotechnology issues believes that molecular manufacturing might
be used for food after 2012 “Unlike a few of the
other reports we have seen on nanotech and food, and as regular readers would
expect, we don't see desktop nanofactories churning out unlimited free food
before 2012. “(10)
Moving from nature-based commodities (i.e., copper, rubber)
towards nano-formulated commodities, towards atomic commodities (molecular
manufacturing) must have an impact on the demand and export capabilities for nature-based
commodities, especially, from low income countries as it will change the
commodity market and, in the end, the nature of trade.(11)
market.
Arguments are
developed in support of especially cognitive enhancements of animals(13). These enhancements will happen on the
nanoscale and if successful will lead to the increased questioning of
speciesism, what it means to be human and whether that is still relevant. It
will lead to an increased discussion around the concepts of human rights versus
sentience rights. The same set of questions will arise from advances in
artificial intelligence.
As a scientist, NGO,
policy maker and public at large one has to be aware of these developments not
just of human performance enhancement.
In some
way it’s a shame that the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) (14) does not include human biological diversity[8] missing
the boat on the impact -ability and otherwise- of new and emerging technologies
on human diversity and that it gives
little to no guidance as to the practice of generating biological diversity
through the modification, enhancement and design of new life. This leaves the
door wide open for others to develop policies around biological diversity [9]not
covered by the CBD which in turn will impact on the goals of the CBD (e.g. if
we can design and generate new biological diversities why should we conserve
naturally existing biodiversities).
Natural sciences and
technologies often converge with other sciences and academic fields which the
European CTEK report(2) highlights very nicely. Other examples are
the understanding of CT by
Example from the Enhancement front:
Enhancements are not
just an issue for technical or natural science. As they are aimed at members of
society and as they have social implications there is a need to involve the
widest area of science and academia and non academics (dealt with below).
My biochemistry work:
My work on
thalidomide and derivatives and their mechanism of action is as much driven by
my natural science side as it’s driven by my social science and activist side.
Finding new applications for thalidomide and it’s derivatives and finding ways
to eventually replace thalidomide with non-teratogenic derivatives is for me
not just a natural science exercise but has societal implications from how to
monitor the distribution of the drug (that’s why the Thalidomide Victims
Association of Canada and I were involved in the development of a monitoring
system for thalidomide in the USA before the drug came on the market). This includes finding a way to
ensure a wide as possible access for people who need the drug to looking at the
causes of the diseases thalidomide and derivatives target to see whether social
determinant actions can be employed to minimize the generation of people with
the diseases.
The NBIC report
talks about the involvement of other people beside NBIC scientists namely
a) Individuals
b) Academe
c) Private Sector
d) Government
e) Professional Societies
f) Other Organizations which includes non-governmental
organizations that represent potential user groups, private research
foundations and the press (1)
However the list of
people and groups envisioned by the NBIC report is far from complete and
substantial changes are needed. If one
looks at the NBIC discourse in general one can see that certain stakeholders
are excluded (disabled people, indigenous people, marginalized populations of
the South) One of the consequences of the limited variation in stakeholders is
that the NBIC discourse in many if not most countries and the risk and needs
assessment discourses discourse myopically cover mostly medical and
environmental health safety excluding social safety, human security safety,
social cohesion problems, social well-being impact and related issues.
Example from the Enhancement front:
As enhancements are
targeting humans and in the end other living biological matter one needs the
involvement of many social groups -in particular disabled people and indigenous
people- and the myopic exclusion of social safety has to change. Different
social groups react differently towards enhancement possibilities within
different societal frameworks. As a researcher I have to be aware of different
streams of thought.
My work:
When I work on
thalidomide and the derivatives I have to be aware of different social groups
and the impact my work has on them. The increased usage of thalidomide in
numerous countries and how fast thalidomide can be replaced by non teratogenic
derivatives impacts on many social groups. Thalidomide has different impacts on
different social groups whereby patient groups served by the drug want access
and thalidomiders feel rather negative about the drug which is not surprising
as society has treated most thalidomiders as defective products throughout
their life.
Biofuel from biomass
is seen as a renewable alternative to oil. But which technologies will be used
to create biofuel? A recent forest
industry roadmap
links nanoforestry to biofuel(15). While genetic technology and biofuel are
linked in the public consciousness, nanotechnology and biofuel are not as
aren’t synthetic
biology and biofuel.(15)
One must consider
many different science and technology options, their possible convergence, and
their social and environmental impacts. All participants in the discourse --
scientists, policy makers, funders, NGOs, and others -- must be more
multifaceted in their analysis. Foresight exercises are needed to see what
technologies and challenges may be on the horizon. The discourse on biofuel,
for example, needs to answer three questions: (1) should we use it? (2) what
technology or mixture of technologies should we use to produce it, if any? and
(3) what social and environmental challenges does this pose?
We use a product like
a drug Step 1) for a disease which is then used for a Step 2) non disease
purpose which then Step 3 leads to a convergence under the social dynamic of
medicalization which makes a disease out of the original non disease
application(8)
Example from the Enhancement front:
We develop the
artificial hippocampus(16) and brain machine interfaces(17). They are developed under the cloak of
wanting to help as impaired perceived people; people with Alzheimer in the
first case and people with cerebral palsy in the second case. However, very
likely both applications if successful will be used for different purposes and
might mostly not be used by and for people with Alzheimer and cerebral palsy
due to their inability to pay for it and the unwillingness of society to pay
for it.
My work:
Thalidomide and its
derivatives although initially used for one application are already used for different
applications. Thalidomide was originally developed as an antibiotic (something
it never became) but was used after that for one application after another
(more than 100 applications can be found on the Thalidomide Victims Association
of Canada webpage[12]).
The terms
glocalization highlights the increasing relationship between local and global.
Huge amount of literature exist on this topic so I won’t expand on it. I
mentioned trade before under molecular manufacturing.
Example from the Enhancement front:
Performance
enhancement of human beings will have global and local impacts on among others human
security(6), self identity security(6;8;18)) and ability security(6) of people who can’t afford or do not want the
enhancement.
My work:
When I work on
thalidomide and the derivatives I have to think about local and global issues.
Thalidomide started in
The health sciences
and technology usage and assessment is a perfect example of the different
convergences needed beside NBIC. I wrote extensively on that topic(8).
Although the terms
Nanomedicine or NBIC-medicine are often used many more nanoscale sciences and
technologies are involved in medicine and health sciences and
technologies.
A Convergence of natural, social and other academic fields and numerous academic and non academic people are needed to understand the complex challenges in health sciences and technology usage and assessment and their interrelation. New sciences and technologies impact on the concept of health and vice versa. These two impact on the consumerism behaviour of the ‘health care client’ (see e.g. the medicalization phenomenon) and vice versa. These three impact on the concept of ableism (see below) which in turn impacts on the term health (the health care discourse are unaware of the appearance of a transhumanist third wave model of health(8;19) which will greatly impact their work) and health care consumerism’. So far no tool exist which would allow to assess whether a ‘medical or social intervention is more efficient and effective(8) and indeed health technology assessment, i.e. compares different health technologies but does not compare a social intervention with a health technology intervention.(8). The focus is often on the medical techno intervention (for which one can come up with numbers easily) while social interventions especially for the social well being part of health are often ignored.