- Home
- From scientific progress to techno-scepticism and Technophobia
From scientific progress to techno-scepticism and Technophobia
By Hélène Ahrweiler
President of the University of Europe
Historian
Former Rector of the Paris Academy
Unesco Expert in social and human science
One of the major problem of our modern society is what the experts call the digital divide or what I myself, prefer to describe as the electronic curtain - that is to say, the distinction between those who produce, possess and use the technological means and tools with which modern science provides us, and the many others (the great majority, even in the developed countries) who have no access to the society of knowledge proposed by technological progress. The gap between the two is widening due to the accelerating rhythm of innovation concerning the development of appropriate instruments of knowledge, the rapidly growing amount of new scientific information in almost all fields, as well as the multiform complexity of technological potential. It seems that when faced with an electronic device (even of such a common use as the mobile telephone) many users ignore the scope of possibilities it offers, most of them being satisfied by its main function - in the case of mobiles, the placing of and replying to calls only. Everyone puts the question why we construct extremely fast cars when the speed in our roads is limited everywhere.
The "Euro barometer" enquiry showed that the attitude regarding science in Europe is in general very ambiguous. Everyone is conscious of the beneficial effects of progress and science on the quality of life (mostly in relation to health issues and life expectancy). At the same time however, a large number of people express their fears about scientific research nourishing new risks inherent in this kind of progress, namely the backlashes of delicate investigation affecting everyday life such as the manipulation of nuclear waste, the pollution of the atmosphere through traffic circulation, nutritional safety or genetic scientific programs which also cause important ethical concerns and discussions among scientists, governments and within the society itself. Although it is generally accepted that only the progress of science can eliminate the dangers and risks posed by hazards (in which we include the scientific, the epistemogenic ones) it is a widely held belief that only a limitation or a different orientation of scientific activity and policy could avoid these undesirable effects without compromising the expected benefits. This kind of reaction, prompted by a need for security, lies at origins of scepticism concerning the notion of progress in general and the technological applications in particular.
In today's world, everyone (even in the most remote areas) is a consumer of science (because of its technological production) and yet no-one is able to control all the aspects of scientific achievements and the products one needs and uses. We discern a vague feeling of uncertainty (even among scientists) which in the public opinion may attain the dimension of a technophobia. Science can be seen simultaneously as both a hope and as diabolic: Prometheus and Frankenstein are the portraits of science in the minds of almost everybody today. It is obvious than the truth lies somewhere in the middle of these extreme edges of the scientific path. That is why it seems necessary to redress public opinion and to thwart the feeling of techno- phobia before it grows and takes the dimension of a protest against science, scientists and research laboratories and institutions. In a society of knowledge like ours, it is necessary to promote the knowledge of knowledge and to try by all means to share knowledge, as we shared bread in the past (without forgetting that the need to assure enough bread for everybody continues to be our first duty).
It is obvious that the necessity to assure access to knowledge for more and more people is achieved through the re-thinking of scientist policy and through the re-shaping of the models of the culture we promote. Culture has to embrace not only activities concerning the humanities, fine arts and literature, but also the practice of science and, of course, its basic knowledge. Academic curricula are to be revised in many respects and it is interesting to note that the European Union launched a project in that direction (Galileo is its name) aiming at improving the familiarisation with science of different social categories of populations, and introducing to the notion of literacy, the knowledge of selected scientific data and elements: a necessary condition for promoting and monitoring innovation in every field.
The question relating to technology that must now be put are the following: Can technical progress cause serial progress? The reply is obviously no!
As technology forms the basis of globalisation and, even more, the reason for its success, one may think or fear that the protest against globalisation as it is expressed in the various forums could be turned against progress in general and more particularly against the technological approach to life, as it is already the case with transgenic plantations. The techno-structures whose complexity causes anxiety may be considered as the foe of modern man, hindering him from following the road to happiness and to spiritual development. From that point of view, we must ask the question: to what extent can science work against technology since science is charged to shape our future without harming the present, by the excesses of technology.
It seems necessary to limit the effects of technocratic governance which is considered as an instrument in the hands of powerful out of any control of citizens.
At the same time science must be taught in almost all the degrees of education in accordance with and not against humanity.
Science must be considered as a part of culture and as a social achievement for the whole mankind. Mentalities must evolve in this direction.