An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: The case of nanotechnology governance

Michael J. Bernstein, Rider W. Foley, Ira Bennett

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number2492
JournalJournal of Nanoparticle Research
Volume16
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Governance
Nanotechnology
nanotechnology
Innovation
Environmental impact
exclusion
Trap
proposals
Engineers
traps
Literature Review
Diminishing
recommendations
Slice
fixing
engineers
Recommendations
tendencies
Enhancement
Maximise

Keywords

  • Complexity-exclusion trap
  • Ethical
  • Legal
  • Science advisory boards
  • Societal
  • Socio-technical problems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
  • Chemistry(all)
  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Condensed Matter Physics

Cite this

An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions : The case of nanotechnology governance. / Bernstein, Michael J.; Foley, Rider W.; Bennett, Ira.

In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 16, No. 7, 2492, 01.01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{e31e06eb24794f398d0c87859e0a057c,
title = "An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: The case of nanotechnology governance",
abstract = "Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.",
keywords = "Complexity-exclusion trap, Ethical, Legal, Science advisory boards, Societal, Socio-technical problems",
author = "Bernstein, {Michael J.} and Foley, {Rider W.} and Ira Bennett",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
journal = "Journal of Nanoparticle Research",
issn = "1388-0764",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions

T2 - The case of nanotechnology governance

AU - Bernstein, Michael J.

AU - Foley, Rider W.

AU - Bennett, Ira

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.

AB - Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.

KW - Complexity-exclusion trap

KW - Ethical

KW - Legal

KW - Science advisory boards

KW - Societal

KW - Socio-technical problems

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903265092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903265092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1

DO - 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84903265092

VL - 16

JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

SN - 1388-0764

IS - 7

M1 - 2492

ER -