TY - JOUR
T1 - An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions
T2 - The case of nanotechnology governance
AU - Bernstein, Michael J.
AU - Foley, Rider W.
AU - Bennett, Ira
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article and Youngjae Kim for early conversations around nanotechnology governance. An earlier iteration of this work was presented in May 2013 at the First Annual Conference on Governance of Emerging Technologies: Law, Policy and Ethics, Chandler, Arizona. This research was undertaken with support from The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), funded by the National Science Foundation (cooperative agreement #0531194 and #0937591). The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.
AB - Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.
KW - Complexity-exclusion trap
KW - Ethical
KW - Legal
KW - Science advisory boards
KW - Societal
KW - Socio-technical problems
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903265092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903265092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1
DO - 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:84903265092
SN - 1388-0764
VL - 16
JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research
JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research
IS - 7
M1 - 2492
ER -