Three thoughts on the Third Wave
Three thoughts on the Third Wave
复制标题
关于第三次浪潮的三点思考
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Owens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Owens
英国皇家环境污染委员会（成立于1970年的咨询机构）在其关于核能与环境的开创性报告中，赞同“在设想重大技术发展的阶段和作出任何承诺之前，对这些技术发展进行最彻底的审查”的呼吁（RCEP 1976，第163段）。大约三十年后，委员会讨论了纳米技术迅速发展对环境的影响。它认为，这些问题超出了风险的范围，包括“关于创新的方向，应用和控制的问题”（RCEP 2008，第4.85段），它敦促新兴技术的治理应该涉及一个多元化的过程，“基于反思和知情的技术和社会情报”（RCEP 2008，第4.12段）。委员会的意见以及这些意见之间的时间跨度告诉我们，在目前情况下，有两件事具有重要意义：寻求科技创新的善治并不是什么新鲜事;尽管进行了许多辩论和活动，但这一目标仍然难以实现。这种难以捉摸的原因之一是，对于技术和科学专业知识在现代民主社会中的适当位置缺乏一致意见。关于这一主题，已经写了大量的文章，尤其是哈里·柯林斯和他的同事们在“第三次浪潮”（柯林斯和埃文斯，2002）上的工作所引发的激烈交流;事实上，如此之多，似乎没有什么可说的了（或者人们至少可以感觉到这场辩论的渐近性质）。在准备这篇对柯林斯等人（2010）最近的文章的简短评论时，我将把自己限制在三个特征上，并重温第三次浪潮的支持者和批评者的早期贡献。一个是共同点（给或拿几个稻草人）与深刻的争论极性共存，所以总是有一个恼人的问题：到底，无法解决的分歧在哪里？另一个问题-鉴于贯穿各种著作的强有力的规范性线索，具有特别重要的意义-是"做什么“这一真实的和尚未解决的问题，以及需要更明确地说明公众参与的含义和目的。第三个原因（我在这里要小心，因为有值得尊敬的例外）是在大量的概念化中，经验工作相对较少，尽管前者无疑是这一领域理论建设的重要组成部分。在研究支持者和批评者的分歧之前，开始从共同点开始是有用的。双方的知名人士都支持对新兴技术进行“搜索检查”的呼吁，并普遍认为这必须涉及广泛的标准，以及利用多样性的审议过程
In its seminal report on Nuclear Power and the Environment, the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (an advisory body established in 1970) endorsed calls for ‘the most searching examination of major technological developments, at the stage when these are conceived and before any commitment to them is made’ (RCEP 1976, para 163). Some three decades later, the Commission addressed the environmental implications arising from the rapid development of nanotechnologies. Arguing that the issues extended beyond those of risk to encompass ‘questions about the direction, application and control of innovation’ (RCEP 2008, para 4.85), it urged that the governance of emergent technologies should involve a pluralistic process, ‘grounded in reflective and informed technical and social intelligence’ (RCEP 2008, para 4.12). The Commission’s observations, and the time span between them, tell us two things of significance in the present context: that the quest for good governance of techno-scientific innovation is nothing new; and that the goal remains elusive, despite much debate and activity. Among the reasons for the elusiveness is the lack of agreement about the proper place of technical and scientific expertise in modern democratic societies. A vast amount has been written on this subject, not least in the vigorous exchanges spawned by the work of Harry Collins and his colleagues on the ‘Third Wave’ (Collins and Evans 2002); so much, in fact, that there might seem to be little left to say (or one might at least sense an asymptotic quality to the debate). I shall restrict myself to three features that have struck me in preparing this brief comment on the recent article by Collins et al. (2010), and revisiting earlier contributions from proponents and critics of the Third Wave. One is the co-existence of common ground (give or take a few straw men) with a deep polarity of argument, so that there is always the nagging question: where, exactly, do the irresolvable differences lie? Another – of special significance given the strongly normative thread running through the various writings – is the real and unresolved issue of ‘what to do’, combined with a need for greater clarity about the meanings and purpose of public engagement. A third (I tread carefully here, for there are honorable exceptions) is the relative paucity of empirical work amidst an abundance of conceptualizations, though the former is surely an essential component of theory building in this field. It is useful to begin with the common ground before examining where proponents and their critics diverge. Thoughtful protagonists on both sides have endorsed calls for a ‘searching examination’ of emergent technologies, and generally agree that this must involve a wide range of criteria, as well as deliberative processes drawing upon a diversity