Introduction

European science and technology cannot advance without the contribution of the social sciences. Science and technology without the social sciences are incomplete, if only for the reason that science and technology are themselves social constructs which require adequate reflection.

With these words Dr Jose Mariano Gago, the Portuguese Minister for Science and Technology, and our special guest today, addressed a workshop of social scientists and ministers for science and technology policy organized by him in Lisbon in April 1997. Just elected as EASST s president, I attended Gago s workshop and was pleasantly surprised both by his words and by the general attitude of the politicians present. The goal of the conference was to discuss provisions that would stimulate the contribution of the social sciences to the Fifth Framework Program for the science and technology policy of the European Union a goal with which I happily agreed. Not just because of the money, but because I fully agree with Gago s diagnoses just quoted. More generally, I am convinced that the problems that accompany the formation and development of the EU cannot be adequately dealt with without a considerably enlarged role of social and cultural research and reflection upon its results.

So, I find the enthusiasm of politicians for the social sciences, and Dr. Gago’s in particular, heartwarming. Yet, it also makes one wonder how we will ever be able to meet the rising expectations, or should I say the rising demands, directed at us? What position should we adopt vis-a-vis EU policies? Europe and the world at-large are changing at an unprecedented pace, and many of these changes have to do with science and technology. Politicians and policymakers are looking our way for help and clarification. What can we offer them and how do we position ourselves as a field of research and development within these processes? These are the key questions for STS in Europe questions we will have to grapple with in the coming days, if not the next couple of years.

Of course, there are also excellent intellectual reasons to be interested in European developments at the end of the 20th century. It is becoming a sort of in vivo experiment and an ideal site for comparative research. The institutional transformations in Eastern, as well as Central and Western, Europe generate enormous problems and profound dilemmas that have to be addressed by local, national, and supranational administrations. Enterprises, universities and research laboratories are challenged by rapid scientific and technical developments. So, there is ample room for comparative, as well as longitudinal, research that addresses the intellectual, cultural and political problems of our times, problems that should interest us and the social sciences at-large enormously, if only out of intellectual curiosity. But Gago and his colleagues want more. They not only want us to do that research, but they also want us to do it in such a way that it helps them try and solve the problems and helps them find acceptable answers to the dilemma s with which they are confronted. How should we take up these challenges?

In discussions about our relation to the policy domain, the same arguments surface time and again. Some of us argue we should stay aloof and keep our distance; they insist on maintaining their academic independence. Or, they prefer to cultivate the well-known role of the critical intellectual interrogating policies and developments instead of serving the centers of power. Others argue social scientists should become partisans and should be mobilized on behalf of social movements that fight the course of events in Europe and the EU. Still others will argue in favor of applied research and consultancy. For some, this latter question may be at least inspired by their wish to find a job in the area of their expertise, in a period in which more secure jobs in academia are not available.

In sketching these positions I am not passing a normative judgement on any of them, because I do not believe that questions about our involvement in EU policy can or should be answered in such an abstract manner. The answers given should and will depend on much more specific conditions and considerations. The locally contingent nature of scientific practice has at best a distant and indirect relation to such general debates. We know this from studying other scientists and we may assume it also applies to us. So, to come up with a basis for practical answers, in the least we have to inspect in much more in detail the structure and functioning of the Fifth Framework Program at its current stage of development.

The Fifth Framework Program

The Fifth Framework Program can be seen as a very complex space structured along politico-economic, cultural, normative and techno-scientific dimensions. In this space there are a number of spots at which the social sciences can make themselves heard and some niches where they are expected to make their contribution. Spots and niches do overlap, but certainly not completely.

If we look at the ways in which the expected contributions from the social sciences are defined we can observe two things. First, the space for the social sciences within the program will probably be larger than under its predecessor. There will be considerable room for new initiatives, especially in the domain of human mobility and the socio-economic knowledge base , and this is a positive development. Second, it is also clear that the program as a whole is still heavily biased, intellectually and financially, against the social and cultural sciences, i.e., against appropriate reflection on the social, cultural and political dimensions of socio-technical change. Let me elaborate on this.

The largest part of the funds of the proposed Fifth Framework Program will be spent on the first key action. In this part of the program, all sorts of problems and technologies are mentioned that should be dealt with in specific programs, for example, health and food technologies, the development of the information society, problems of agricultural development, biotechnology, transport and mobility, the city s of tomorrow, and climactic change. All these topics are quite familiar to us and, in the more recent versions of the proposed program, it is stated explicitly. I quote, Particular attention will be taken of the economic and social implications, use and effects of the technologies and processes involved in each of these programs.

This statement is encouraging, especially as it was not included in that form in the documents available at the time of the April 1997 workshop mentioned above. It signals the widening of the program for STS and offers opportunities for us to enlarge our contribution. So, there are apparently developments going on that we should welcome and I am happy to do so here. Nevertheless, at least two observations that are more critical should be mentioned at the same time.

One may argue, first, that the statement I just quoted contains a specific view of science and technology in relation to the social research indicated. It seems to indicate a sort of black-box conception of science and technology. The quote suggests that economics and the social sciences should deal with the pre-conditions, diffusion and effects of technical change, but not with its substance.

But, may be I am splitting hairs. One might say that to interpret this one sentence in this particular way is an over-sensitive reaction of someone immersed for more than a decade in science studies; maybe no black-boxed conception of science and technology was intended. In any case, it is hard to tell whether this is true, as not much more is said in this part of the program about the social sciences in relation to science and technology. That remains for further elaboration in future documents. This brings me to my second comment.

Apart from the passage just quoted, no mention is made of the social sciences in the document covering the first part of the new program. This is understandable, as the latest proposal studiously avoids explicit mention of particular scientific disciplines. Socio-economic, cultural, and techno-scientific issues are sketched but nothing more. In a way, this is an improvement over the previous documents. In these previous documents, the broad sketches of issues and problems led to the identification of fields of science that would be central to the activity, but, in those covered, the social and cultural sciences were absent. As if food, health and information technologies are not cultural and social issues par excellence! So, in that respect, the current proposal seems an improvement rather no specification at all at this stage, than to be excluded beforehand. In its current form, the document leaves room for further discussion and specification of the fields of knowledge and expertise that should be mobilized. And, actually, these discussions are being organized right now.

Nevertheless, I am not too optimistic about this further elaboration of the program, as far as STS is concerned. STS is a small, interdisciplinary field with diverse intellectual roots that pull its practitioners apart. As a field, it tends to be badly represented in debates in which all sorts of perspectives and disciplines are supposed to have a part. Looking back over the last two decades, the field seems to have become more divided internally, both with regard to the theoretical perspectives adopted and with regard to the sorts of analysis that are being pursued. Intellectual exchange between researchers doing quantitative research and those engaged in historical or ethnographic work seems to have almost disappeared. The growing importance of science and technology in everyday life has itself contributed to a considerable increase in the number of thematic issues on which one may concentrate. Some examples are risk, public understanding, science and the law, and regulation. And, each of these themes may be studied with particular object domains in mind, such as health, agriculture, city s, transport, etc.

We seem to be a weak field because of this enormous variation in themes and object domains, as well as in theoretical and methodological orientations and predilections. Yet, what seems to be a weakness at first sight may actually point out our strength our field is extremely varied and intellectually rich. Furthermore, our field is unique in the way in which it relates to the work done by scientists and engineers. Our relationship with technology, the natural sciences, and medicine is clearly different from other areas in the humanities and social sciences. If it comes to building bridges between society and science and technology, we may have a unique vantage-point.

We should, then, take advantage of our unique position, exploiting our diversity in intellectual resources and our relations with scientists and engineers. We should not only do so in order to develop our theories, knowledge and understanding, but also to contribute to better-informed policies and to a more effective and broader participation in processes of social, cultural and technical change.

Perhaps some people will disagree with what I have just said. It might be argued that the differentiation has led to a dysfunctional fragmentation of the field. Have we not divided our limited resources over too many themes and domains to be effective? Should we not operate more programmatically and in a more coordinated fashion? Should we not join forces and develop a limited number of coordinated, and preferably comparative and quantitative, projects?

No doubt, fragmentation is a threat to the field. Fragmentation may occur and does occur, and we should counteract such tendencies. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise to attempt this in such a manner that the diversity of the field would be sacrificed. Our diversity should be better exploited, but it should not be sacrificed in a way that will only make us poorer in the end. In this respect, our situation is similar to the EU itself cultural diversity is something to be celebrated and cherished, instead of something to be extinguished. Cultural diversity is as much a resource as biodiversity. It may enhance the capacity to survive and adapt to changing circumstances.

In order to avoid a digression from diversity into fragmentation we have to coordinate our activities better, we have to discuss the research agendas for themes and domains in a more systematic fashion, and we have to explore possibilities for collaboration and exchange across national and institutional boundaries more vigorously. Last, but not least, we should improve our arrangements for training and educating younger researchers, so they will be able to confront the problems that lie ahead and require international collaboration.

In all these respects, initiatives have been taken and a lot are already going on. But, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done in each of the directions just mentioned. New ways have to be found to combine the training of young researchers with the discussion and development of the research agenda of the future. This can be done by organizing workshops and conferences in selected areas corresponding to items on the policy agenda, as exemplified by the Fifth Framework Program. The program for this conference shows there are already a number of areas in which we have sufficient mass to take further initiatives. In other areas, the conference program shows that it is within reach to build such a critical mass, provided we take initiatives and look for support from outside.

If we think of our positions within the larger context of European science policy, we might improve our situation further as long as we do not restrict our discussions to card-carrying members of the STS community. Such discussions should include exchanges with the scientists and engineers whose work we seek to analyze. It should also include intellectual exchange with neighboring fields, such as ethics, political theory, anthropology, studies of legal issues, cultural studies, and economics, to mention some of the more obvious. I am as much convinced that we can learn from them as I am convinced that they might profit from our experience and theoretical reflections.

Long-term perspectives and normative commitments

Let me conclude by adding two further items for future debate about our agendas and priorities. First, it is particularly important to take a long-term perspective on today s problems. The temporal order of our intellectual agenda is probably different from the short-term needs of the political arenas, and those carving out a career for themselves in them. But, history shows most problems take longer to solve, outliving the period between elections or the stages between turning points in bureaucratic careers. It is our intellectual and moral duty to investigate how and to what extent today s puzzles are repetitions of those of yesterday and the years before. Such an investigation should also address the ways in which specialist professionals and citizens have participated in defining the problems and the attempts to cope with them. The second requirement for discussions of research agendas and priorities is that we should organize them in such a way that the normative implications of our theoretical and methodological choices are considered and reflected upon.

These last two points are related, of course. It would be rather na‹ve to assume that technical choices are normatively neutral and do not affect the lives and the practices we study. A long-term perspective concerning the ways in which scientists, engineers, and people like ourselves have related to the practical exigencies of solving concrete problems may help us become, and remain, reflexively alert to the normative dimension of our work.

I think that Ted Porter has done extremely valuable work in this respect, in his book Trust in Numbers. That book analyzes how various sorts of engineers, accountants and social scientists have been involved in creating today s world, while developing their own field at the same time. It provides us with important items for our research agenda and an example of how we might proceed. And we have to proceed, because the book also makes clear that the political, theoretical, and normative evaluation of the contributions of the social sciences to social developments is underdeveloped.

A more rational discussion of problems of involvement and detachment vis-a-vis the problems of society can only be realized if we develop an historically-informed, as well as political, assessment of our daily work and field as a whole. And, also in this respect, we should see to it that practical involvement and critical reflection are developed even-handedly and in step with one another.