|
Printversion
Workshops & debates
The debate – Facing Science
Bildung or image building:scientific education for new generations
Images of the mind
Intelligent design and the discussion about science and religion
Promises of science
Playing God
Images of science in past and future
Mediating between science and society
Using science: ELSI and the E of Economy
The debate – Facing Science
Our way of life, our health, our communications, our eating, drinking and travelling are all (partly) facilitated by scientific research. And whether we like it or not, every day we are confronted with the effects of scientific and technological development, the we including those not involved in, sceptical of or even totally disbelieving science. In the debate Facing Science we give the floor to people from this outsider perspective who will give their views on scientific developments and the interaction between science and society. This outsider perspective is often coloured or unnoticed when it finally reaches the scientific community. Scientists are often, and frequently justifiably, concerned and irritated about the way in which science is portrayed. On the other hand many scientists do not show significant interest in how the many groupings in society perceive and respond to science.
During Facing Science not all the debaters will be strangers to the subject. To the contrary, some will be very familiar with it. But their contribution to the debate will in the first place be based on their social beliefs. What does science actually mean for the religion, philosophy, art and culture or are the two worlds really worlds apart? And from the outside in, do people from outside the scientific world try to influence developments within science. To what extent is such intervention defensible? Do different views on science exist within the different social domains? Is a distinction made between different scientific disciplines?
Each participant will have the possibility to present a short statement to give his/her vision on the issues to be discussed. The debate is obviously not limited to the speakers. Scientists and people from outside the field are also invited to offer their contribution.
Contributions
Nick Bostrom (UK, philosopher)
Kathinka Dittrich (Germany, consultant on art and culture)
Hassan Hanafi (Egypt, philosopher with an Islam view)
Jozef Zycinski (Poland, Archbishop of Lublin)
Chair
Nanne van de Poll (formerly Rathenau Institute)
Back to top
Bildung or image building: scientific education for new generations
The Bologna declaration represents the choice for a uniform European system of higher education. One of its main purposes is creating a competitive edge on a global scale. According to some this choice is primarily motivated by economic considerations (the knowledge economy). They say that the divergence of science has driven the humanistic ideal of Bildung from the stage (taken as the acquirement not only of knowledge, but also the ability for moral and aesthetic judgement and 'just' conduct).
Are these concerns justified? Are they inspired by an overly idealistic image of Bildung and do they argue for a return to a situation that in fact never existed? Is it true that the Bologna Model does not offer enough possibilities for Bildung?
The key question is what these recent developments might mean for the education of new generations of scientists - European bachelors and masters. Will their scope be broad enough to deal with issues that transcend their own discipline? Will they be sufficiently qualified to handle the complex ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) they meet on their path? Or, put differently, could it be that the ‘ELSIfication’ of science requires some sort of 'resurrection' of the ideal of Bildung? What does the Bologna Model have to offer us?
Contributions
René Gude (International School for Philosophy)
Mariëtte Hellemans (Catholic University Leuven)
John Smith (European Universities Association)
Chair
Arend Soeteman (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam)
Format
Speakers will each first present a short statement. After comment by other speakers, the floor will open for discussion.
Download the report
Back to top
Images of the mind
Cognitive neuroscience is progressing the understanding and explanation of the activities of the brain. New and scientifically fertile ways of investigation such as neuroimaging are making it possible to gain detailed insight into brain functions in vivo. Some developments are:
1. The illusion of transparency, and over-reliance on visual data and scientific capabilities
Brain-imaging techniques do not produce ready-for-use conclusions. Imaging data are based on mathematical procedures and have to be interpreted by skilled specialists, whose opinions and interpretations may vary. Scientists fear that in the evaluation of individuals data some people will be deceived by the aura of high tech and the powerful impact of the visual, and accordingly, may be inclined to put more weight on evidence than is warranted by the facts. Scientists argue for a better public understanding of the capabilities and limitations of neuroimaging, in order to prevent over-reliance on this source of information.
2. The neuro-self: A new way of imaging the self and of human personhood
Personhood and self are being increasingly conceptualised in terms of neuronal and neurocognitive processes. The sciences of the brain offer a rich source of metaphors for understanding what it is to be a human individual with a self and an identity. However, the change in debates about self and identity is not only a linguistic device. Discussions about agency, identity, and responsibility that classically take place in philosophy, theology, and the social sciences, are now being re-conceptualised into brain processes and concomitant neurocognitive phenomena. Research in neuro-phenomenology, one of the new branches of cognitive neuroscience, is especially interesting in this respect as it explicitly reviews neuronal correlates of the so-called first-person perspective. Even if it will never be possible to bridge the gap between third and first person accounts of mental states (such as pain), the new science will offer findings that will probably change our way of conceiving this gap.
3. Objectivising brain activity in clinical situations
Brain imaging techniques allow us to assess and validate the objective outcomes of therapy. However, how are outcome measures related to clinical reality? Clinicians are not only dealing with the gap between subjective reports and objective measures (see previous paragraph), but also with the distance between the ‘laboratory’ and clinical practice. How will this distance be dealt with in the future? How will our practices (medical, psychotherapeutic, and even social) be changed by what we see and measure of the brain?
4. Brain fingerprinting and privacy
Brain imaging opens new and unexpected insights into individuals' brains and hence into their minds. This urges us to redefine the limits of privacy and of personal freedom. There is increasing worry about pre-emptive genetic or brain image screening. It is, for instance, possible to use brain imaging in order to identify potential psychopaths. In America the technique of brain fingerprinting is already used. This leads to intriguing and far-reaching questions about the detaining of people at risk for committing crimes or acts of violence.
Introductions
Peter Hagoort (Radboud University Nijmegen)
Andreas Roepstorff (Copenhagen University)
Chair
Gerrit Glas (Leiden University)
Format
Illustrated presentation of the state of the art
Short response
Discussion with the audience
Download the report
Back to top
Intelligent design and the discussion about science and religion in the 21st century
Within the broad scope of ‘Images of Science’ and relsification, this workshop will address the relationship between science and religion. This relationship obviously has a long and heated history. Rather than looking back at the past, however, we like to look ahead and discuss what fruitful prospects this relationship may hold in the 21st century.
We have chosen to address the recently emerging debate about Intelligent Design. Some scientists advocate the proposition that the attributes of nature indicate a design; indeed, they state that a design inference can objectively be made from biology, cosmology, and other scientific fields. This claim has been disputed by scientists that maintain that Darwinism is an adequate explanation that comprises apparent design. The discussion includes arguments from science, philosophy, and theology. It thus appears to be an interesting vehicle to discuss the future relationship between these fields.
In this workshop we will debate Intelligent Design and its implications for the discussion about science and religion in the 21st century. The two speakers represent the two opposing views from Intelligent Design and Darwinism.
Introductions
Paul Nelson (United States, Discovery Institute)
Michael Ruse (United Kingdom/United States Florida State University)
Chair
Wil Derkse (Radboud University Nijmegen)
Format
Two presentations followed by debate
Further background information
W. Dembski and M. Ruse (Eds.) Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Download the report
Back to top
Promises of science
‘Leukaemia gene found – cure is near’. ‘Gene therapy to cure cystic fibrosis’. If all scientific predictions of the last decades had come about, we would now live in a totally different world. Cancer would be nothing more but a distant memory, or at least no more then a chronic disease. Alzheimer, Aids, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, psychiatric disorders: all would be things of the past. Robots would do all menial jobs. But for the most part it has not been so. Gene therapy has always held and will always hold great promises for the future. But today, it seems as if it might never be more than a promise. Progress in cancer research has been painstakingly slow. Malaria and infectious diseases still kill millions every year despite promises made by scientists decades ago. Now, the focus of optimism is on stem cells and nanotechnology. Will these technologies be able to live up to their expectations?
Clearly, in the past unrealistic promises were made. In this workshop we will dig deeper into the background of these promises. Who was responsible for them? Scientists themselves, the media, patient groups, the general public? Were expectations deliberately overstated? And if so, what was the goal of this exaggeration? Did unrealistic expectations give rise to mistrust and criticism? Should we be more wary of ‘breakthroughs’ that scientists so often declare? How to distinguish fact from fiction?
Introductions
Christine Mummery (Utrecht University, Hubrecht Laboratory)
Clare Matterson (Wellcome Foundation UK)
Jean-Claude Ameisen (France, INSERM: French Institue for Medical and Health Research)
Chair
Alice ter Meulen (Groningen University)
Format
Short presentations followed by debate
Download the report
Back to top
Playing God
Many people feel that modern biomedical technology is leading to the ‘makeable man’ with religious and philosophical concepts often playing key roles in the debate on the subject. Frequently-used terms such as naturalness, acceptability, human dignity, vanity, moderation, suffering, all carry strong moral connotations. But different philosophies have different ways of examining the idea of makeability. Christian philosophies are sometimes reserved on it. Man was created in God’s image and we should therefore be respectful and reserved when it comes to interfering in the natural order. But arguments for interfering and improvement are also made based on the idea of honourable stewardship. Similar, more positive views on makeability exist in Islam and Judaism: man was given the world by God to protect and improve it. Humanists assume that man is the author of his own life story and if someone feels that a makeable body fits in with this, then humanists will generally have little difficulty with it. Some naturally fear that the rise of technological ‘interference’ will reduce man’s capacity to lead his own life. It is striking that differences in opinion between people on makeability can often be traced back to religious and philosophical convictions, though these are rarely invoked except by ‘professionals’ such as preachers and priests.
What are the different religious and philosophical positions with regard to makeability? What basic values underlie these positions. What are the similarities and differences within and between the different traditions?
This discussion between the different religions and philosophies on makeability is not a debate in the sense of those in favour and those not. It will be much more of a debate in which the positions of the different positions are critically compared and contrasted with each other.
Introductions
Hassan Hanafi (Cairo University)
Józef Miroslaw Zycinski (Archbishop of Lublin)
Egbert Schroten (Utrecht University )
Henk Jochemsen (Lindeboom Institute)
Chair
Frans Brom (Utrecht University/Wageningen University)
Format
Short statement by the speakers followed by debate.
Download the report
Back to top
Images of science in past and future: beauty, inspiration and the public debate
Images play an important part in science communication, if only because images of science are often the most persuasive way to make scientific results and conclusions clear. Contemporary artists often transform such images into works of art thereby showing how beautiful science can be. This was done for instance in the Truth and Beauty exhibition which demonstrated how fruitful the interaction between scientific images and aesthetics can be. It is a well-known fact that many famous scientists of the past were often, usually in their teens, inspired by art to actually become scientists.
Science is often used as inspiration by artists in other ways as well. Think, for instance of Shelley's Frankenstein ,the motion picture The Matrix, the book 1984 by George Orwell, or The Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin. More often than not, these works of fiction sought to give warnings as to what can happen if science goes wrong. Unrealistic they may have been, but they are surely powerful proof of how images of science or scientists can be successful in stimulating public debate. Naturally, these are not always the kinds of debates that scientists like.
Can or should images of science be used to deliberately inspire and influence public debate? And if so how? And more to the point how not? Do such images lead the public debate in other directions? These and other questions on the relationship between science and images will - illustrated by examples – be addressed in this workshop.
Introductions
José van Dijck (University of Amsterdam)
Robbert Dijkgraaf (University of Amsterdam)
Rob van Es (University of Amsterdam)
Chair
Inez de Beaufort (Erasmus University of Rotterdam)
Format
Illustrated introductions and reflections, followed by debate
Download the report
Back to top
Mediating between science and society
Science as source of knowledge is often no longer directly accessible to society. The increasingly complex and abstract information flow from science needs mediators to reach the general public. Conversely, ELSIfication challenges (ethical, legal, social issues) need mediators to communicate them clearly to scientists. So obviously there is need for considered and balanced two-way mediation between science and society. Broadly three types of players can be distinguished in this process - scientists, mediators, and politicians/citizens.
Ideally every scientist should be a mediator. But abilities vary and some are naturally better than others. Ideally mediators should act both as ambassadors of science to society and ambassadors of society to science. They should realise that a good ambassador listens carefully to comments and fears from both sides. He should then translate these clearly for the community as a whole.
Who are society’s mediators? Formally these include politicians, chosen to represent citizens. But they are not the only ones. Citizens have many reasons to communicate their messages to scientists both as individuals and members of (interest) organisations. But just as science mediators should be ambassadors: representing their group and their views, so should society create mediators to represent their group and their views. Neither should be blind and deaf to the other.
To facilitate mediation between science and society, both groups can benefit from professional mediators. There are several types: media journalists; science museum representatives; technology assessment organisations are among them. Mediators should mediate in both directions: not only from science to society but also, and perhaps even more important from society to science. And of course they should do this in an investigative way: a mediator must never be a dogma delivering mouthpiece.
The workshop aims to create better understanding of the role of two-way mediation between science and society with the intention of making proposals for the institutionalising and embedding of these roles in society. Three speakers will be invited from science, political and mediating organisations to present provoking statements on mediating from their own perspectives. This will be illustrated with best and perhaps also worst practices.
Introductions
Vincent Icke (Leiden University)
Paul Murdin (Cambridge University/BBC)
Ad Lansink (former Member of Parliament)
Chair
Johannes Schroots (ALLEA)
Format
Introductions followed by debate
Download the report
Back to top
Using science: ELSI and the 'E' for 'Economy'
An old adage is ‘science for the sake of science’, the search for truth because truth is what we need. But the focus of science seems to be shifting away from truth and objectivity towards a more practical approach. Increasingly scientists are having to deliver products on demand, with their findings being regarded as ‘useless’ if we cannot do anything with them. (The link with workshop 4 on the promises of science is obvious.) But what are the consequences of thinking of science in terms of its utility only? We see cost/benefit analyses entering our universities. Within the BaMa structure in the Bologna model science of public administration is added to the physics curriculum. Is science commercialising? Is knowledge becoming a commodity?
This points us to another related side of using science. One key problem of scientific advance is so-called ‘dual use’. Science can be used, but also misused. In many cases the responsibilities of the scientific community and individual scientist are unclear. Where does responsibility begin and where does it end? Misuse of science for arms making, the threat of unexpected results, and the growing economic importance of science all seem to be reasons for the general public to mistrust scientists. Is this mistrust justified? How far can or should we take the commercialisation of science? Is its growing economic importance a threat to the ‘ELSIfication’ of science? And if so, what can be done (and by whom) to prevent this from happening? In scientific circles discussion has accelerated as to measures to filter out research proposals containing tangible causes for concern for harmful applications. Is this a good idea, or not?
Introductions
Brian Eyre (British Royal Society)
Emilio Fontela (Department of Economics and Management, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija)
Guus Berkhout (Delft University for Technology)
Chair
Jan Staman (Director Rathenau Institute)
Format
Short introductions followed by debate.
Download the report
Back to top
| 