Science Philanthropy and Societal Responsibility: A Match Made for the 21st Century

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Evan S. Michelson: “The overlapping crises the world has experienced in 2020 make clear that resources from multiple sectors — government, private sector, and philanthropy — need to be deployed at multiple scales to better address societal challenges. In particular, science philanthropy has stepped up, helping to advance COVID-19 vaccine development, identify solutions to climate change, and make the tools of scientific inquiry more widely available.

As I write in my recently published book, Philanthropy and the Future of Science and Technology (Routledge, 2020), this linkage between science philanthropy and societal responsibility is one that needs to be continually strengthened and advanced as global challenges become more intertwined and as the relationship between science and society becomes more complex. In fact, science philanthropies have an important, yet often overlooked, role in raising the profile of the societal responsibility of research. One way to better understand the role science philanthropies can and should play in society is to draw on the responsible research and innovation (RRI) framework, a concept developed by scholars from fields such as science & technology policy and science & technology studies. Depending on its configuration, the RRI framework has roughly three core dimensions: anticipatory research that is forward-looking and in search of new discoveries, deliberative and inclusive approaches that better engage and integrate members of the public with the research process, and the adoption of reflexive and responsive dispositions by funders (along with those conducting research) to ensure that societal and public values are accounted for and integrated at the outset of a research effort.

Philanthropies that fund research can more explicitly consider this perspective — even just a little bit — when making their funding decisions, thereby helping to better infuse whatever support they provide for individuals, institutions, and networks with attention to broader societal concerns. For instance, doing so not only highlights the need for science philanthropies to identify and support high-quality early career researchers who are pursuing new avenues of science and technology research, but it also raises considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion as equally important decision-making criteria for funding. The RRI framework also suggests that foundations working in science and technology should not only help to bring together networks of individual scholars and their host institutions, but that the horizon of such collaborations should be actively extended to include practitioners, decision-makers, users, and communities affected by such investigations. Philanthropies can take a further step and reflexively apply these perspectives to how they operate, how they set their strategies and grantmaking priorities, or even in how they directly manage scientific research infrastructure, which some philanthropic institutions have even begun to do within their own institutions….(More)”.

Open data governance: civic hacking movement, topics and opinions in digital space

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mara Maretti, Vanessa Russo & Emiliano del Gobbo: “The expression ‘open data’ relates to a system of informative and freely accessible databases that public administrations make generally available online in order to develop an informative network between institutions, enterprises and citizens. On this topic, using the semantic network analysis method, the research aims to investigate the communication structure and the governance of open data in the Twitter conversational environment. In particular, the research questions are: (1) Who are the main actors in the Italian open data infrastructure? (2) What are the main conversation topics online? (3) What are the pros and cons of the development and use (reuse) of open data in Italy? To answer these questions, we went through three research phases: (1) analysing the communication network, we found who are the main influencers; (2) once we found who were the main actors, we analysed the online content in the Twittersphere to detect the semantic areas; (3) then, through an online focus group with the main open data influencers, we explored the characteristics of Italian open data governance. Through the research, it has been shown that: (1) there is an Italian open data governance strategy; (2) the Italian civic hacker community plays an important role as an influencer; but (3) there are weaknesses in governance and in practical reuse….(More)”.

The Pandemic’s Digital Shadow

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Freedom House: “The coronavirus pandemic is accelerating a dramatic decline in global internet freedom. For the 10th consecutive year, users have experienced an overall deterioration in their rights, and the phenomenon is contributing to a broader crisis for democracy worldwide.

In the COVID-19 era, connectivity is not a convenience, but a necessity. Virtually all human activities—commerce, education, health care, politics, socializing—seem to have moved online. But the digital world presents distinct challenges for human rights and democratic governance. State and nonstate actors in many countries are now exploiting opportunities created by the pandemic to shape online narratives, censor critical speech, and build new technological systems of social control.

Three notable trends punctuated an especially dismal year for internet freedom. First, political leaders used the pandemic as a pretext to limit access to information. Authorities often blocked independent news sites and arrested individuals on spurious charges of spreading false news. In many places, it was state officials and their zealous supporters who actually disseminated false and misleading information with the aim of drowning out accurate content, distracting the public from ineffective policy responses, and scapegoating certain ethnic and religious communities. Some states shut off connectivity for marginalized groups, extending and deepening existing digital divides. In short, governments around the world failed in their obligation to promote a vibrant and reliable online public sphere.

Second, authorities cited COVID-19 to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive. The public health crisis has created an opening for the digitization, collection, and analysis of people’s most intimate data without adequate protections against abuses. Governments and private entities are ramping up their use of artificial intelligence (AI), biometric surveillance, and big-data tools to make decisions that affect individuals’ economic, social, and political rights. Crucially, the processes involved have often lacked transparency, independent oversight, and avenues for redress. These practices raise the prospect of a dystopian future in which private companies, security agencies, and cybercriminals enjoy easy access not only to sensitive information about the places we visit and the items we purchase, but also to our medical histories, facial and voice patterns, and even our genetic codes.

The third trend has been the transformation of a slow-motion “splintering” of the internet into an all-out race toward “cyber sovereignty,” with each government imposing its own internet regulations in a manner that restricts the flow of information across national borders. For most of the period since the internet’s inception, business, civil society, and government stakeholders have participated in a consensus-driven process to harmonize technical protocols, security standards, and commercial regulation around the world. This approach allowed for the connection of billions of people to a global network of information and services, with immeasurable benefits for human development, including new ways to hold powerful actors to account….(More)“

Cracking the code: Rulemaking for humans and machines

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Paper by James Mohun and Alex Roberts: “Rules as Code (RaC) is an exciting concept that rethinks one of the core functions of governments: rulemaking. It proposes that governments create an official version of rules (e.g. laws and regulations) in a machine-consumable form, which allows rules to be understood and actioned by computer systems in a consistent way. More than simply a technocratic solution, RaC represents a transformational shift in how governments create rules, and how third parties consume them. Across the world, public sector teams are exploring the concept and its potential as a response to an increasingly complex operating environment and growing pressures on incumbent rulemaking systems. Cracking the Code is intended to help those working both within and outside of government to understand the potential, limitations and implications of RaC, as well as how it could be applied in a public service context….(More)”.

Which Side of History?: How Technology Is Reshaping Democracy and Our Lives

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Common Sense: “…collection of essential essays, provocative perspectives, and calls to action that challenge the status quo, and that could—if we are willing to listen—redefine our relationship with technology….The onset of the coronavirus pandemic brought cascading crises and a deeper dependency on technology to keep us connected—but at a cost. We’re using tech for work, education, health care, essential services, and fun. That same technology is spreading misinformation and threatening free and open democracies. It’s widening the gap between rich and poor, taxing our emotional capacities and mental health, and creating social inequities by leaving behind those of us who are underserved and under-connected…(More)”.

Catastrophes of the 21st Century

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Roger Pielke: “There are few ways to better display our ignorance than by speculating on the long-term future. At the same time, making wise decisions depends upon both anticipating an uncertain future and the limits of what we can know. This paper takes a broad look at global trends in place today, where they may be taking us, and the implications for thinking about catastrophes of the 21st century. I suggest three types of catastrophes lie ahead. The familiar – hazards that we have come to expect based on experience and knowledge, such as earthquakes and typhoons. The emergent – hazards that are the product of a complex, interconnected world, such as financial meltdowns, supply chain disruption and epidemics.

The extraordinary – hazards that may or may not be foreseen or foreseeable, but for which we are wholly unprepared, such as an asteroid impact, massive solar storm, or even fantastic scenarios found only in fiction, such as the consequences of contact with alien life. I will argue that our collective attention and expertise is, perhaps understandably, disproportionately focused on the familiar. The consequence, however, is a sort of intellectual myopia. We know more than we think about the familiar and less than we should about the emergent and the extraordinary. Yet our ability to deal with the hazards of the future likely depends much more on our ability to prepare for the emergent and the extraordinary. The talk will conclude with recommendations for what a robust and resilient global society might look like in the face of known, unknown and unknowable risks of the 21st century….(More)”.

Demystifying the Role of Data Interoperability in the Access and Sharing Debate

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jörg Hoffmann and Begoña Gonzalez Otero: “In the current data access and sharing debate, data interoperability is widely proclaimed as being key for efficiently reaping the economic welfare enhancing effects of further data re-use. Although, we agree, we found that the current law and policy framework pertaining data interoperability was missing a groundworks analysis. Without a clear understanding of the notions of interoperability, the role of data standards and application programming interfaces (APIs) to achieve this ambition, and the IP and trade secrets protection potentially hindering it, any regulatory analysis within the data access discussion will be incomplete. Any attempt at untangling the role of data interoperability in the access and sharing regimes requires a thorough understanding of the underlying technology and a common understanding of the different notions of data interoperability.

The paper firstly explains the technical complexity of interoperability and its enablers, namely data standards and application programming interfaces. It elaborates on the reasons data interoperability counts with different levels and puts emphasis on the fact that data interoperability is indirectly tangled to the data access right. Since data interoperability may be part of the legal obligations correlating to the access right, the scope of interoperability is and has already been subject to courts’ interpretation. While this may give some manoeuvre for balanced decision-making, it may not guarantee the ambition of efficient re-usability of data. This is why data governance market regulation under a public law approach is becoming more favourable. Yet, and this is elaborated in a second step, the paper builds on the assumption that interoperability should not become another policy on its own. This is followed by a competition economics assessment, taking into account that data interoperability is always a matter of degree and a lack of data interoperability does not necessarily lead to a market foreclosure of competitors and to causing harm to consumer welfare. Additionally, parts of application programming interfaces (APIs) may be protected under IP rights and trade secrets, which might conflict with data access rights. Instead of further solving the conflicting regimes within the respective legal regimes of the exclusive rights the paper concludes by suggesting that (sector-specific) data governance solutions should deal with this issue and align the different interests implied. This may provide for better, practical and well-balanced solutions instead of impractical and dysfunctional exceptions and limitations within the IP and trade secrets regimes….(More)”.

An exploration of Augmented Collective Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Dark Matter Laboratories: “…As with all so-called wicked problems, the climate crisis occurs at the intersection of human and natural systems, where interdependent components interact at multiple scales causing uncertainty and emergent, erratic fluctuations. Interventions in such systems can trigger disproportionate impacts in other areas due to feedback effects. On top of this, collective action problems, such as identifying and implementing climate crisis adaptation or mitigation strategies, involve trade-offs and conflicting motivations between the different decision-makers. All of this presents challenges when identifying solutions, or even agreeing on a shared definition of the problem.

As is often the case in times of crisis, collective community-led actions have been a vital part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities have demonstrated their capacity to mobilise efficiently in areas where the public sector has been either too slow, unable, or unwilling to intervene. Yet, the pandemic has also put into perspective the scale of response required to address the climate crisis. Despite a near-total shutdown of the global economy, annual CO2 emissions are only expected to fall by 5.6% this year, falling short of the 7.6% target required to ensure a temperature rise of no more than 1.5°C. Can AI help amplify and coordinate collective action to the scale necessary for effective climate crisis response? In this post, we explore alternative futures that leverage the significant potential of citizen groups to act at a local level in order to achieve global impact.

Applying AI to climate problems

There are various research collaborations, open challenges, and corporate-led initiatives that already exist in the field of AI and climate crisis. Climate Change AI, for instance, has identified a range of opportunity domains for a selection of machine learning (ML) methods. These applications range from electrical systems and transportation to collective decisions and education. Google.org’s Impact Challenge supports initiatives applying AI for social good, while the AI for Good platform aims to identify practical applications of AI that can be scaled for global impact. These initiatives and many others, such as Project Drawdown, have informed our research into opportunity areas for AI to augment Collective Intelligence.

Throughout the project, we have been wary that attempts to apply AI to complex problems can suffer from technological solutionism, which loses sight of the underlying issues. To try to avoid this, with Civic AI, we have focused on understanding community challenges before identifying which parts of the problem are most suited to AI’s strengths, especially as this is just one of the many tools available. Below, we explore how AI could be used to complement and enhance community-led efforts as part of inclusive civic infrastructures.

We define civic assets as the essential shared infrastructure that benefits communities such as an urban forest or a community library. We will explore their role in climate crisis mitigation and adaptation. What does a future look like in which these assets are semi-autonomous and highly participatory, fostering collaboration between people and machines?…(More) –

See also: Where and when AI and CI meet: exploring the intersection of artificial and collective intelligence towards the goal of innovating how we govern

Image for post
ACI Framework — Download pdf

The Expertise Curse: How Policy Expertise Can Hinder Responsiveness

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Miguel Pereira‪ and Patrik Öhberg: “We argue that policy expertise may constrain the ability of politicians to be responsive. Legislators with more knowledge and experience in a given policy area have more confidence in their own issue-specific positions. Enhanced confidence, in turn, may lead legislators to discount opinions they disagree with. Two experiments with Swedish politicians support our argument. First, we find that officials with more expertise in a given domain are more likely to dismiss appeals from voters who hold contrasting opinions, regardless of their specific position on the policy, and less likely to accept that opposing views may represent the majority opinion. Consistent with the proposed mechanism, in a second experiment we show that inducing perceptions of expertise increases self-confidence. The results suggest that representatives with more expertise in a given area are paradoxically less capable of voicing public preferences in that domain. The study provides a novel explanation for distortions in policy responsiveness….(More)”

To Fight Polarization, Ask, “How Does That Policy Work?”

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Alex Chesterfield and Kate Coombs: “…One reason for this effect, and for the polarizing outcome, is we often overestimate our understanding of how political policies work. In this case, the more omniscient we think we are, the easier it is to ignore alternative facts or ideas. This phenomenon has a name—the illusion of explanatory depth (IOED). Unless explicitly tested, individuals can remain largely unaware of the shallowness of their own understanding of the things they think they understand—such as the mechanics of a bicycle, or how the policy they support or despise will actually work.

Researchers have started to explore what happens to political attitudes when you explicitly test people on how much they actually know about a policy. When people discover that they don’t know as much as they thought they did, something interesting happens: their political attitudes become less extreme….

Some countries and institutions are already using these insights to improve decision-making on divisive topics. Deliberative democracy, which plays out in the form of citizens’ assemblies and juries, where a small group of people (12-24) come together to deliberate on an issue, provide time and information to encourage participants to generate explanations—rather than justifications based on values, hearsay, or feelings—for their positions. Participants also tend to be representative of the general population; research suggests that increasing contact between diverse individuals could also help diminish affective polarization by shrinking the prejudices we form when making assumptions about the “other” that are based on reductive stereotypes, rather than real, complex people.

Outside of juries and citizens assemblies, countries like Ireland have used deliberative democracy to address a range of complex and highly polarized issues including same-sex marriage, access to abortion, and climate change. U.K. politicians from both sides of the aisle have called for a Brexit assembly to try and break the U.K. political deadlock. Will it work? We don’t know yet, and we’d encourage researchers to continue to study this topic. In the meantime, we can each begin by  confronting our own ignorance. Before committing to a position or policy, ask yourself to explain mechanistically how you think it will bring about the intended outcome. Do you really understand it?

Test your own mechanistic reasoning. Pick a topic you feel strongly about: climate change, Brexit, Immigration, gun laws, assisted suicide/legal euthanasia. Instead of justifying why you support a particular position so strongly, try to explain how it might lead to a particular outcome….(More)”