Global Science & Technology Policy - Together Towards Common Goals | Dr. Miltos Ladikas
Countries with the most vibrant science and technology (STI) sectors often also have the strongest economies in the world. Building such vibrant innovation ecosystems require collaboration among start-ups, SMEs, large corporates, policymakers, NGOs, the public and other innovation stakeholders. Good science and technology (S&T) policies provide these diverse groups with a framework for working together whether locally or abroad. In this episode of Future Up Close, Dr Miltos Ladikas will take us into the world of national and global S&T policy development. Through the lens of Technology Assessment (TA), he discusses and compares centralised and decentralised policy development systems across, in particular, European countries and China using examples including genetically modified (GM) foods and nanotechnology developments.
Watch Full Episode
Dr. Miltos Ladikas is a senior researcher at the Institute of Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. He had studied Social Psychology at the London School of Economics (M.Sc., PhD), focusing on Societal Aspects in Biotechnology Developments. Since 1996, he has held research positions in the UK and Germany, specialising in science and society issues. Miltos has coordinated a number of international projects in the areas including science and technology policy, technology assessment, ethics of scientific developments, public perceptions of science and technology, genetically modified foods and access to pharmaceuticals.
Miltos advises the European Commission, the European Research Council, the European & Developing Countries Clinical Countries Partnership, and a number of national research funds on social-ethical issues in research.
His current work focuses on Global aspects of Technology Assessment, Responsible Innovation, Ethics in Science and Technology Policy, as well as, Science Diplomacy.
Topics covered:
Participatory Technology Assessment in China vs Europe: similar systems, different culture
Impact of geopolitical tensions on global S&T policies and innovations
Which international organisations are leading global S&T policy development?
Is there an optimum balance between incentives and punishments for RI?
“...you should always leave a possibility of change within your legislative system. And in order to do that, you need politicians to be quite close to these concerns and be part of the debate.”
Characteristics of "Good" S&T Policy or Process:
Innovation policy outcomes are the result of how a political system reacts to the value system of a society. Therefore, a “good” S&T policy requires at least two aspects:
1) Policy-makers to show leadership in driving innovations that embody commonly agreed values forged over time, and;
2) Policy-makers to also understand immerging and changing concerns, fears or excitements surrounding novel innovations to ensure policy decisions and outcomes resonate with changing local values and needs:
“if one must make a very a crude summary of what makes a good policy then a good policy is both a socially sustainable policy - i.e. aware of societal conflict and silent concerns about a specific technology - but also one that is trying to minimize the conflict via open debates via an open science… it shows leadership in (foundational) values…which are written in our constitutions… It is good if we stick with these values because they are the result of very long discussions in society”
Technology Assessment (TA) and the GlobalTA Network
Technology Assessment (TA) is a broad field of practice, aimed at analysing the possible immediate and long-term impacts of technology. TA is particularly useful for understanding contentious, immerging and disruptive innovations - such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, blockchain - where an assessment may cover a broad spectrum of topics including societal, economic, ethical and legal implications of innovation. Insights are used by policymakers and innovators to navigate decisions including innovation policy, strategy and design.
The GlobalTA Network was founded in 2019 to create a space where TA practitioners from around the world can converge and exchange information, work on common projects and develop common methodologies to increase TA capacity and productivity on a global scale:
“When it comes to very contentious developments like genetically modified foods, we discovered the obvious: we all faced the same problems. What we lacked was a similar approach to assess these developments. Everyone would go more or less ad hoc, just making it up as it goes. By working with our colleagues in China, India, Australia, Russia and Brazil and so on, we decided to try to get everyone under a single umbrella association but this time at a global level.”
The GlobalTA Network currently (as of February 2021) has 29 members across 24 countries including Australia, Brazil, China, Demark, Norway, Russia, the UK and the USA.
Participatory Technology Assessment in China vs Europe:
In comparing the technology assessment process in European countries and China, Miltos explains that both instances involve lively debates among diverse stakeholders including industry, policymakers and the public. The key difference is that while the reasons behind policy outcomes are openly shared in Europe, such information is usually protected in China.
“..in Europe we have a long tradition of what we call participatory technology assessment. Participatory technology assessment is basically an assessment procedure that incorporates as much as possible wide stakeholders so anything from the public and the NGOs to any related interest group of course industry, politicians, policymakers, and so on so forth…Now, one would think that in China they wouldn't be open to such a process. As a matter of fact, China not only had their own participatory TA processes…I took part in a couple of these debates in China and they were very open debates. The concerns were raised, the fears were raised in the same way… The difference I would say is sometimes (in European process) you will see a direct relationship between the policy-making results and that process e.g. “we did the debate, that's what they said..and then we reach the conclusion.” This process is quite open. This doesn't happen in China…It's direct legislation that comes through closed-door discussion. So you see…they appear to be very strong differences…but the process behind that closed door is not so different…at least that's the way I see it because, as I have told you before, I like to look at the similarities than the differences.”
International Organisations Leading Global S&T Policy Development
While the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has the tradition, resources and collaborative orientation to shape global Science and Technology policies, the UN, according to Miltos, still has the broadest international membership and plenaries required to drive global Science and Technology policies:
“…the OECD of course is not global...but they definitely have the means, the experience, and the will, actually, to help a lot in the global S&T policy. And, of course in principle and traditionally it should be the UN. It's in their remit to deal with grand social challenges and they have a membership that covers the whole world. So, I think it's kind of obvious that we have to stick with an UN system. We just have to help it be more effective that's all.”
The main challenge facing the UN’s ability to drive S&T policy decisions, according to Miltos, is geopolitics:
“It is political will. As simple as that. And this is something that cannot be solved. …the UN is, a kind of, peak global parliament. You have different parties which sometimes scream and shout at each other, undermine each other in order to promote their own agenda. But if we see it as a means not only to promote our own national agenda but also to promote common resolutions to common problems as it should be, then I believe there should be a more neutral view of science and technology within the UN system.”
Science & Technology Policy Development In China
Miltos’ first exposure to China's innovation policy development process was while completing his PhD in the 90s. Observing the arrival of genetically modified(GM) foods in Europe, Miltos says similar debates emerged in China:
“I was shocked of how open these debates were. You would have prominent people come up in the debates and say “what is this kind of GM foods? They want to destroy us, they will kill us, and what is the government thinking about that?…”, a very emotional kind of reaction that I have only experienced in Europe and I assumed it was because it was the “European openness” that created it. Then I saw it happen in China.”
“In the beginning there was a kind of uncertainty but a kind of a positive, technocratic point of view of GM foods and then there were public reactions. These reached the media quite fast and there were people complaining everywhere and, if you like, they almost pressurised the government into reconsidering their technocratic approach. The result was more or less the same like in Europe. So (now) you have a much more careful approach to the GM food and GM in agriculture in general (in China). So, I found that quite positive and I think also for my Chinese colleagues it was one of the things that created this kind of the new China, the new openness within the Chinese society that came along with the openness and trade, in the individual…it was part of the whole kind of process”
A second, more recent, example is the debate around nanotechnology. Nanotechnology was first introduced in China in commercial products such as creams and cosmetics. Since nanotechnology debates had already preceded in Europe, conversations in China were able to build on these debates. Over time, public attitude towards nanotechnology took a similar route as GM foods - switching from positive to cautious:
“we had an interesting situation whereby, before there was a public debate about nanotechnologies, they were commercial products advertised as having a nanotechnology or nanoparticles. Because it was nanotechnology made, the debate started. Because you had ready-made arguments that you could take from Europe about the positive and negative aspects, they were all taken up similarly in China. Then people's perception of nanotechnology started to change from a positive by default to a debate about the pros and cons. Then (the perceptions) started to become more negative and from what they have told me, they have stopped advertising. It's actually nowadays considered a negative to advertise a product that contains nanotech material. So, it was interesting - that was also the result of a public debate (but) policy had nothing to do with that. Official risk assessment and procedures that created the science and technology policy decision making was completely different than the public debate but the results were, as we see it. So now nanotech, like in Europe, is also slowly and very carefully taken up.”
What’s Next for Miltos: Building the GlobalTA Network and a Global Life Science Database
Miltos shares three RRI-related projects including research into: 1) the embedment of RRI in research organisations, 2) how RRI can be used to improve technologies for the ageing society, and 3) conceptual differences among RRI, TA (technology assessment) and SR (sustainability research) in Germany.
Miltos is expanding the GlobalTA Network, a project which also includes the development of a common global life science database. A common global database, Miltos explains, will help reduce innovation risks and increase the accuracy and quality of innovation output, improvements that are critical when tackling issues such as developing effective vaccines for the current pandemic. Building a common global life database remains, however, a challenge:
“…if you want to create a common resolution…then you need to have common data and work with common data. It sounds simple but it's extremely complicated because you have to bring in the data sets from different countries into a single proof and countries are not very happy to share data. We want to concentrate on data that is less contentious, which is not so easy to find. For us, life science data would be for example the number one priority and is also one that you can more easily argue for. China has the biggest gene bank in the world…we also have big data sets from the US but not as big, not even close to that actually, the UK and even here in Germany…If you want to create, to develop, a new vaccine the more data you have the easier, more accurate and better the products you will have. The less risky the products you will have. So we need that to create new vaccines fast, we need to create new treatments, new medicines and so on so forth.”
Key legislation helping to drive this initiative in Europe is the General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR). This legislation requires data to be either anonymised or offer the individual the right to privacy such as the right to exclude themselves from the database. China introduced similar legislation in 2020 called the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), thus in principle making it easier for data sharing between the two regions. In Australia, the closest legislation to the GDPR is The Privacy Act 1988 albeit offering lower protection for individuals. For example, while Europe’s GDPR affords individuals’ the “right to be forgotten”, Australia’s Privacy Act does not. The USA currently does not have a similar GDPR legislation in place.
For more information on Miltos’ work: https://www.itas.kit.edu/english/staff_ladikas_miltos.php. You can watch Milto’s full interview here: Global Science & Technology Policy - Together Towards Common Goals.
