The power of knowledge and its limitations

Helga Nowotny - Leuven, 8 December 2012

 

Nowotny

“The biggest limitation to knowledge is accepting the fact that we live in a world of our own making,” says Helga Nowotny, an eminent member of the scientific community, professor emerita of Social Studies of Science at ETH Zürich, and president of the European Research Council (ERC). Nowotny, who was recently chosen by the Financial Times as 2011’s most influential woman in Technology and Science, visited Leuven in December 2011 to celebrate KU Leuven’s 35th ERC grant, participate in the ERC Symposium organised by the Biomedical Sciences Group, and explain the modalities and policy behind future ERC calls for proposals. Her lecture was attended by a large audience of Belgian scientists and researchers. Nowotny spoke about her vision of the past, present and future of science in Europe.

Does the Enlightenment have a place in modern science and society?

“Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, modern science in Europe started to systematically discover the laws of nature. These laws were seen as standing above everything made by humans, and hence above the power of political, religious and societal authorities. This is one of the reasons why scientists insist on the autonomy of their activities. Ever since, science has been characterised by the autonomy of inquiry, although such autonomy has never been absolute. Science is driven by curiosity and does not know in advance where this curiosity will lead and what will be found. Yet, society cannot tolerate unlimited space for curiosity and attempts to tame it. Hence, a fine balance must be drawn by giving science the autonomy it needs for the unfolding of creativity, while also setting some constraints. Too much regulation may stifle scientific creativity, while too little may lead to unethical conduct. The most important legacy of the beliefs of the Enlightenment, which continue to drive the successful ‘scientific enterprise’, are the inherent self-criticism and skepticism built into scientific knowledge production. All knowledge will be superceded by new knowledge. These drivers are essential for the power of knowledge.”

“Science in the 21st century is underpinning economic growth. Investments in research are the precondition for the exploitation of the results of knowledge production. Growth of the knowledge society and the creation of new careers as well as the opening of new outlooks on life and our ability to shape our societies all depend on continued investment in basic research. Scientists should take heed: what matters to the public is that knowledge lays the foundations for technological developments that are perceived as beneficial in our daily lives. Despite some persistent disbelief in the power of knowledge, some of which may cause irritation among scientists (e.g. climate change skeptics, especially in the US, who disregard anthropogenic causes of climate change; the alleged link between autism and vaccines; and GMO’s), the experience and aspirations of the public still support the idea that scientific knowledge has the power to make a real and decisive difference.”

Why should Europe keep investing in knowledge?

“A strong correlation exists between investment in basic research and innovation capability, even when a long-term perspective is necessary and science-based innovations can occur anywhere. Knowledge production is the motor of economic growth. Excellent science across all fields brings global benefits and is the bedrock upon which future innovations – both technological and social – must be built.”

“You hear a lot of talk about innovation these days. One can distinguish two kinds of innovations: incremental innovations, which are carried out largely in firms, and radical innovations, which lead to paradigm shifts in the way economies work and societies function. The computarised environment in which we live is only one of the indications of the profound transformations brought about by radical innovations, all of which can be traced back to basic science performed 30-40 years ago. The difficult message to convey to policymakers, therefore, is that it takes trust to invest in basic science, trust in the power of knowledge, and the courage to develop long-term perspectives, contrasting the short-term, day-to-day, even hour-to-hour window in which societies operate today.”

What is the greatest challenge faced by society today?

“The greatest challenge for our societies and all of their citizens, which is at the same time a limitation to the power of knowledge, is the following: we need to accept the fact, cognitively as well as politically, that we live in a world of our own making. Our societies have reached a level of complexity that makes controlling – let alone mastering – all of its consequences exceedingly difficult. This complex world of our own making is characterised by unpredictability and contingencies play a major role. Not only is the current financial crisis an example of this, but so are the other Grand Challenges that our society is facing as well: an ageing population, future energy and food supply, climate change, etc.”

What of the Enlightenment project?

“We started out with a wonderful European project, the Enlightenment, which is still an unfinished project. It has had its flaws and dark sides. Yet at the core of the Enlightenment project is the strong belief in the power of knowledge and the scientific method as the way towards coping with the world’s problems. This hope has yet to be fulfilled. It is linked to the necessity to come to a better understanding that the world is a world of our own making.”

“The Enlightenment project is unfinished. I want to point out several dimensions in which science is challenged to play a bigger role in the future. First, the social sciences and humanities must be better aligned with knowledge production in the natural sciences. The hope that the scientific method which was so successful in our understanding of the natural world could simply be extended to the social world did not materialize. We have to try again in a novel way. Second, the boundary between what is considered “natural” and what is considered “artificial” has always been questionable. It continues to shift in even more dramatic and accelerated ways. In this respect scientists need to take society with them in blurring the boundaries even further. You have to engage and convince the public that what you investigate comes out of the natural: it amounts to nothing more and nothing less than to innovate on what nature has to offer for the better. Third, given the impressive rise of scientific output in South East Asia and other parts of the world and the impressive changes in their educational systems, Europe should not assume that our model of a university is the only one that can respond to global necessities. New opportunities present themselves to respond to the aspirations of millions of young people in other parts of the world who are eager to have access to knowledge and education. Fourth, we need new institutions fit for the challenges of the 21st century and capable of accommodating not only the aspirations of people, but also their actual experience with what science and technology have to offer. Finally, there is the question of scale: whatever we do at one level needs to be scalable.”

“The unfinished project of Enlightenment is something we should treasure, and I hope that everybody who has an ERC grant will contribute to it. Knowledge creation and excellent science are the best way forward to prepare our societies for an uncertain future.”

 

Stijn Delauré and An Jansen