Date:June 15, 2009 (Mon.) 16:30-18:30
Venue: Meeting Room, RISH, Kyoto Univeristy
Presentation:
Tadashi Kobayashi (The Osaka University Center for the Study of Communication-Design)
Title: What is the Trans-science? - From the viewpoint of STS -
Professor Tadashi Kobayashi began with an outline of debates over science (works such as C.P. Snow’s The Two Cultures, which discusses the gulf separating literary intellectuals and scientists, Merton’s Sociology of Science, which describes the norms and structure of the scientific community, and Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), which he interspersed with a self-introduction. In his outline, Prof. Kobayashi explained that Kuhn had stressed the efficiency of knowledge production in what he called “normal science” more so than he had the “paradigm shift.” Nonetheless, he pointed out that as a result of conditions in the 1960s and 1970s, the latter concept ended up attracting more attention.
The criticism of science that emerged in the 1970s was in Japan separate from the world of universities and tended to happen outside the realm of academia, whereas in Europe and America it remained within the universities and was institutionalized. Research and education of this kind from the humanities and social science, focused on social aspects of scientific technology, is known as Science, Technology and Society (STS). In discussing STS, Prof. Kobayashi introduced his own publication series entitled Kagaku minaoshi sosho (Science review series) and his practice of holding consensus development conferences.
Prof. Kobayashi also explained the concept of “trans-science” as a “group of problems related to the fact that while questions can be asked of science, science cannot return an answer.” For example, there is broad agreement among scientists that the probability of a nuclear power plant being damaged in many places at once is very low; judging how to assess this agreement, however, is difficult. In the context of BSE-related issues, the decision to reopen the Japanese market to the import of American beef was likewise a problem of mixing science and politics. These examples, Prof. Kobayashi claimed, demonstrate that uncertainty in systems has grown over recent years, the scope of technology-related social concerns having broadened and become more complex (a field referred to as SHEE Sciences: The Sciences of Safety, Health and Environment plus Ethics); these changes, he argued, call for improved mutual understanding and cooperation between society and technology.
In his easy-to-follow presentation of the above topics, Prof. Kobayashi incorporated his own personal experiences while showing careful consideration of both sides of the science-humanities debate, in doing so drawing the interest of many in the audience. While maintaining the impossibility of a “unified literature and science” that would do away with the barrier separating the humanities and science, Prof. Kobayashi reiterated that this relationship should not become a “Berlin Wall,” but rather a door which can be easily opened and passed through.
In response to this presentation, Dr. Fumikazu Ubukata raised a question about the state of science and society in Asia and Africa, introducing the example of the controversy regarding the spread of eucalyptus. He noted that among the so-called developing countries, there is a large gap between science and society, one that is greater than in Europe and America. While the system supporting science in these countries is weak, there is a great deal of wisdom about topics outside of science.Dr. Ubukata brought up the question of what points to consider in thinking about this gap.
Another comment was raised by Dr. Naoki Shinohara, who suggested that distinctions should be drawn with respect not to “scientific technology” but to “science and technology,” repositioning issues between the four pillars of science, technology, society and humanity. He emphasized the necessity to highlight not only those elements of human nature that are easy to change, but also those essential elements that are more difficult to change. As an example of the latter, he cited the time lag between the discovery of a scientific idea and its practical application, and wondered how this lag should be perceived and understood.
In responding to the comments above, Prof. Kobayashi highlighted how few countries there are in which science is used as a first language, and mentioned the need to consider Japan’s position with respect to Asian and African regions and its intellectual responsibility in this regard. In addition, he stressed the importance of appropriate technology issues and of the essential need to incorporate local knowledge in Asian and African regions, yet admitted that this process had not materialized. While STS strives to promote such work, he emphasized that this was not enough on its own, and that scientific investigation of local knowledge was also required.
The main problem in science and technology, Prof. Kobayashi said, was that of the “unknown unknown,” or in other words not knowing what you don’t know. Just forming a consensus about this issue is itself extremely difficult, he said. While it would seem that only political solutions are thus possible, he argued on the contrary for a mutual understanding that scientific mistakes are inevitable, and suggested that a consensus was needed for making rational mistakes.
Regarding Dr. Shinohara’s comment about time lag, Prof. Kobayashi suggested that rather than thinking of the translation of basic research into scientific applications in a linear way, it is more productive to consider the path via which innovation is created. With respect to the comment about “unchangeable aspects of human nature,” he pointed out that today’s scientific technology can affect mental and spiritual aspects once seen as “unchangeable,” and stated that the situation is as such very complicated.
In questions from the floor, audience members brought up the issue of overspecialization in the humanities, of diversity in humanities and science and of the difficulty of finding symmetry between the two (as in the fact that there is no system to raise questions regarding the failures of social science in areas such as economic policy). Differences in assessment systems were cited as an example of factors obstructing connections from being made between the humanities and science, such efforts having come to be treated as a kind of “side business” difficult to assess as a “main area of study.” In addition, someone also pointed out that there may be a need for the perspective of STS to include consideration of the ecological environment and the view of corporations and the market.
In advancing mutual understanding between science and the humanities, one of the central goals of our program, discussions at the seminar carried a great deal of significance. On the other hand, however, it also became evident that there is no all-purpose solution for bridging the gap between these two worlds. Based on the discussions at this seminar, greater efforts in the future must be invested in concrete research activities aiming to draw connections between the humanities and science.
(Shuhei Kimura)