A VISION OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
Cover drawing by Stéphane Fretz. Vanité, 2008, ink on paper, 27 x 20 cm.
A VISION OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY LAYING FOUNDATIONS FOR A WORLD KNOWLEDGE DIALOGUE Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte, Francis Waldvogel, Editors
EPFL Press A Swiss academic publisher distributed by CRC Press
Taylor and Francis Group, LLC 6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487 Distribution and Customer Service
[email protected] www.crcpress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
is an imprint owned by Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, a Swiss academic publishing company whose main purpose is to publish the teaching and research works of the Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes EPFL – Centre Midi Post office box 119 CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland E-Mail : ppur@epfl.ch Phone : 021 / 693 21 30 Fax : 021 / 693 40 27 www.epflpress.org © 2008, First edition, EPFL Press ISBN 978-2-940222-28-5 (EPFL Press) ISBN 978-1-4200-9228-8 (CRC Press) Printed in France All right reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher.
4ABLE OF #ONTENTS
!CKNOWLEDGEMENTS IX
)NTRODUCTION XVII
#HAPTER
7HERE AND 7HENCE XII BY !NDRm (URST 4HE 2ULES OF THE 'AME FOR A +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE XIV BY $AME *ULIA (IGGINS
&OR A 7ORLD +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE XIX BY &RmDmRIC $ARBELLAY -OIRA #OCKELL *mRxME "ILLOTTE AND &RANCIS 7ALDVOGEL
#OMPLEXITY AND .EUROSCIENCES IN $IALOGUE 4OWARDS A .EW 4HEORY OF THE "RAIN &ROM "RAIN $YNAMICS TO #ONSCIOUSNESS (OW -ATTER "ECOMES )MAGINATION !NALYSIS BY &RmDmRIC $ARBELLAY OF THE PRESENTATION BY 'ERALD - %DELMAN 4OWARDS A .EUROSCIENCE OF THE #APABLE 0ERSON 5NITY $IVERSITY AND /NESELF AS !NOTHER !NALYSIS BY &RmDmRIC $ARBELLAY OF THE PRESENTATION BY *EAN 0IERRE #HANGEUX
#HAPTER
.EW $ISCOVERIES $E½NING #OMPLEXITY 3EARCHING FOR 3IMPLICITY IN #OMPLEXITY 'ROWTH )NNOVATION %CONOMIES OF 3CALE AND THE 0ACE OF ,IFE FROM #ELLS TO #ITIES 3UMMARY BY -OIRA #OCKELL AND &RANCIS 7ALVOGEL OF THE PRESENTATION BY 'EOFFREY 7EST
vi
For a knowledge dialogue between natural and social sciences
5NDERSTANDING AND -ANAGING 0LANETARY #OMPLEXITY 3UMMARY BY -OIRA #OCKELL &RANCIS 7ALVOGEL AND 3 +ADNER OF THE PRESENTATION BY (ANS *OACHIM 3CHELLNHUBER 7HY 0HYSICS IS %ASY AND !UTISM IS (ARD BY )AN (ACKING
#HAPTER
#OMPLEXITY AND +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE IN $ISCUSSION +NOWING #OMPLEX 3YSTEMS 4HE ,IMITS OF 5NDERSTANDING BY 0AUL #ILLIERS #ONSILIENCE AND THE 3TATUS OF (UMAN ,EVEL 4RUTH BY %DWARD ' 3LINGERLAND "OUNDARIES "OUNDARIES BETWEEN $ISCIPLINES AND "OUNDARIES IN THE -IND BY %RNEST (ARTMANN !N )MMUNOLOGIST´S 6IEW ON %STABLISHMENT OF A +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE BY $ANIELA &INKE 4OWARDS A .ONMODERN .ONHUMANISM BY -ARK - &REED 0ROMOTING 3CIENTI½C $IALOGUE AS A ,IFELONG ,EARNING 0ROCESS BY -ICHEL !LHADEFF *ONES
#HAPTER
/RIGIN AND -IGRATIONS OF -ODERN (UMANS 0ALAEONTOLOGY !NTHROPOLOGY 'ENETICS AND ,INGUISTICS IN $IALOGUE (UMAN -IGRATIONS IN 0REHISTORY ¯ THE #ULTURAL 2ECORD 3UMMARY BY -OIRA #OCKELL OF THE PRESENTATION BY /FER "AR 9OSEF 4HE /RIGINS OF -ODERN (UMANS ,INGUISTIC )SSUES 3UMMARY BY -OIRA #OCKELL OF THE PRESENTATION BY "ERNARD 6ICTORRI ! 'ENETIC 6IEW OF (UMAN /RIGINS 3UMMARY BY -OIRA #OCKELL OF THE PRESENTATION BY 3VANTE 0iiBO
#HAPTER
+NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE !CADEMIC )NSTITUTIONAL 'OVERNANCE %DUCATION AND %XPERIENCES 3OCIETAL 2ESPONSIBILITY OF 5NIVERSITIES 7ISDOM AND &ORESIGHT ,EADING TO A "ETTER 7ORLD BY 2ICHARD 2 %RNST 0ATTERNED $IVERSITY IN )NTERDISCIPLINARY $IALOGUES ,ESSONS FROM AN %MPIRICAL 3TUDY OF )NTERDISCIPLINARY 2ESEARCH AT THE &RONTIER BY 6ERONICA "OIX -ANSILLA )NCREASING 3CIENTI½C ,ITERACY IN 5NDERGRADUATE %DUCATION ! #ASE 3TUDY FROM ±&RONTIERS OF 3CIENCE² AT #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY BY 4IMON 0 -C0HEARSON 3TUART 0$ 'ILL 2OBERT 0OLLACK AND *ULIA % 3ABLE /RGANIZING #ROSS DISCIPLINARY $IALOGUE IN !CADEMIA $EBATING #OMPLEXITY AND /RGANIC $EVELOPMENT AT 3INGAPORE -ANAGEMENT 5NIVERSITY BY -ARKUS " +ARNER
Table of Contents
vii
.EW )NITIATIVES OF THE 5NIVERSITY OF 4OKYO TOWARD %STABLISHING A 3TRATEGY FOR 3USTAINABILITY THROUGH +NOWLEDGE 3TRUCTURING AND A 4RANSDISCIPLINARY !PPROACH BY !KIMASA 3UMI "2!).ETWORK AN %XPERIMENT IN 4RANSDISCIPLINARITY BY :ALINA )SMAIL +NOWLEDGE #ULTURE AND )NTERDISCIPLINARY $IALOGUE BY 2AVI DE #OSTA 4HE 0ARADIGM 3HIFT IN THE 2ELATIONSHIP "ETWEEN 3CIENCE AND 3OCIETY BY -ARY ,OUISE 'IFFORD !NTHROPOLOGY IN THE 5NITED 3TATES ¯ WHEN $IALOGUE )3 THE $ISCIPLINE ! -ULTI LEVEL %VOLUTIONARY #ONSIDERATION OF +NOWLEDGE 0RODUCTION BY $AN 4 ! %ISENBERG
#ONCLUSION AND 0ERSPECTIVES 7HERE AND 7HENCE &RmDmRIC $ARBELLAY -OIRA #OCKELL *mRxME "ILLOTTE &RANCIS 7ALDVOGEL
#ONTRIBUTORS
!CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A need for the creation of a more constructive and innovative dialogue between the natural and technical sciences, the social sciences and the humanities of our time is becoming more and more widely acknowledged by the academic and scientific community. It was with the objective of creating a forum for discussion and debate that would allow these different branches of our academic and cultural heritage to renew their connections with each other that the first Symposium of the World Knowledge Dialogue (WWWWKDIALOGUE CH) took place in Crans-Montana (Switzerland) during the three days of 14-16 September 2006. This encounter between leading researchers from different and complementary horizons marked the starting point for a much larger and more ambitious project aimed at uniting the forces of experts from all academic branches in the common cause of understanding and resolving complex issues which face the contemporary world. The idea for this publication was sparked by the enthusiastic response to the first international event of a series, itself made possible thanks to the synergistic and generous collaborative efforts of numerous different university, institutional, scientific and personal networks operating both locally and globally. Within this context, we thank the members of the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS), the University of Geneva, the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, the University of Lausanne, the University of Zürich, and the Swiss National Science Foundation for their unanimous support of the World Knowledge Dialogue’s initiative. Our gratitude goes also to the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) of the Swiss Confederation (Government), to the Swiss Federal Council and to M. Pascal Couchepin in particular (Swiss Federal Councillor, Head of the Department of Home Affairs), to the Canton du Valais, to the Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch (IUKB), to the Fondation Hans Wilsdorf, to Berger van Berchem & Cie and to anonymous donators for their precious and enthusiastic support. The first WKD Symposium also benefited immensely from links to the European scientific community, with the notable participation of M. Jàn Figel’, European Commis-
x
Acknowledgements
sioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism who underlined his support for the project in a speech highlighting the central role of dialogue between academic branches in the processes of knowledge acquisition and innovation. Thanks go equally to the European Science Foundation (Strasbourg / France), the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Halle / Germany), the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Münich / Germany) and the Fondation Science et Cité (Bern, Switzerland) for their collaboration and support. Within the global context, the WKD initiative salutes the Swiss Embassy in Tokyo (Japan), the Swiss House in Singapore (Asia) and the Swiss Scientific Consulate “Share” in Boston (USA) for their valuable contributions to communication and organizational aspects of the first Symposium. The WKD’s International Scientific Board, Honorary board, and Foundation board (whose numerous members are listed on the Internet site of the WKD /WWWWKDIALOGUE CH), made invaluable contributions to the design of the scientific program of the first WKD Symposium. We thank each member for sharing their stimulating points of view concerning the multiple challenges and goals of interdisciplinary dialogue. Thanks to passionate contributions (comprised within the present publication) of Speakers and Chairpersons alike, towards the goal of establishing constructive and illuminating dialogue perfused with complex and multidimensional themes, the banner phrase «World Knowledge Dialogue» took on real meaning during the Symposium. These dynamic exchanges were immeasurably enriched by the frank and lively involvement of Young Scientists who attempted to situate their own work within a perspective of dialogue. Altogether around 250 participants hailing from 34 countries combined their efforts to make the World Knowledge Dialogue into a powerful vector for interdisciplinary communication. The realization of this book marks yet another step in the WKD Foundation’s mission ; to foster awareness of, encourage and support, the taking of proactive steps towards achieving a better understanding and a mutual respect between the cultural and scientific branches of our academic institutions. It is for academics themselves to better define and implement those steps. We are indebted to all those who contributed to the process by investing time and effort to elaborate their own reflections on how the complex interactions between science and society affect the world and their place in it. Everyone participating at the Symposium workshop debates helped enrich the content of the reflections summarized herein. Finally we are grateful to the 2006 Symposium’s Speakers who have shown tolerance, generosity and understanding in according us liberty to paraphrase and analyze their contributions in the cause of bridging the traditional communication gaps between academic cultures. May ‘Research’ and its practitioners in all disciplines find in these pages the same testimony of gratitude that we extend to all those institutions, individuals and networks who, from near or far, have helped, encouraged and set the scene for a truly progressive dialogue of knowledge to take place in a spirit of respect for their differences and their complementary value.
Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte, Francis Waldvogel Crans-Montana, Switzerland, June 1st 2008
&OREWORDS
7HERE AND 7HENCE by André Hurst
These questions go way back. They are asked at the very beginning of Plato’s Phaidros (“My dear Phaedros, where are you going, and whence ?”). It could look just like a friendly inquiry about daily whereabouts, but evidently, at the beginning of a book in which ultimate views about the world will be exposed, it should certainly be read also as the ultimate question. Asking the ultimate questions, giving the ultimate answers through various theories of everything has often been considered the major occupation of our species (“By its very nature, mankind wants to know”, says Plato’s pupil Aristotle). Asking “where and whence ?” has thus been done for a long time, in many ways, and is still done currently. But it is done in very different ways, depending on whether you stand in the field of anthropology or in the field of quantum physics, to give just two examples.
-ETHODOLOGIES MAY CHANGE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS REMAIN THE SAME If methodologies can differ and the fundamental questions remain the same, should we not help by a dialogue between the different fields of knowledge ? This, up to a point, is already done in so-called interdisciplinary studies (but which, very often, turn out to present us with just one more “discipline”, such as the many “comparative” this or that to which the academic world has become familiarized). The contribution of the “World Knowledge Dialogue” (WKD), with the help of scholars from all over the world, aims at trying to elucidate a new way of exploring all our different forms of knowledge (and, admittedly, the definition of these is itself unclear) in order to find methods and ways of expressing them that could help them to advance in harmony one or several steps further. This view has been adopted unanimously by the Swiss Rectors’ Conference : the country not only enjoys the presence of many first-rank scholars, whether foreigners or Swiss, it
Forewords
xiii
can also take advantage of their world-wide networks and has in and of itself a long tradition of multiculturalism that favors all forms of dialogue.
!DDRESSING AN URGENT NEED The first session of the WKD at Crans-Montana (Switzerland) provided up to a point the very proof that something of this kind was urgently needed. Indeed, it could be said that the dialogue was very timidly attempted, and what one could actually witness was only a first step towards the goal : representatives of sciences and of humanities accepting to make contact, to speak in the presence of colleagues of different fields about unfamiliar basic questions, sometimes unknowingly imitating each other. There was unanimous agreement on one thing : the perspective for dialogue had to be brought further, we had not succeeded completely at the first try and, hence, the problem was, and is, a real one. One thing, at least, came undoubtedly out of this first session : we are not alone. This very comforting consideration is applied in its synchronic and its diachronic dimension : participants came from the world at large, and this should go on, as it is an essential feature of the concept itself ; in addition to this, participants bridged the generation gap. The young scientists, perhaps still less influenced by the traditional borders of their discipline, turned out to be very active and very effective participants. Their presence is a guarantee for the future of the dialogue to which we hope to bring our contribution. If there is a message this publication would like to convey to its readers, it certainly is : feel invited (and free) to join us.
4HE 2ULES OF THE 'AME FOR A +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE by Dame Julia Higgins
The First World Knowledge Dialogue in Crans-Montana in September 2006 was an enormous and courageous experiment, not just for the organizers but also for all the participants. As the scientist in residence I had the challenging job of setting the scene and laying out the “rules of the game” for such a dialogue in an introductory talk. At the time of the meeting I still held my (time-limited) role as Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s Academy of Science and one of the oldest in the world. Founded in 1660 just after the restoration of the monarchy in the UK, the society was an early expression of a revolution in thinking about the natural world, which was sweeping through Europe. This birth of experimental science was expressed in the Royal Society motto “Nullius in verba” – which translates literally as “nothing in words” but means to imply “believe what you see, not simply what you are told”. My use of this motto to introduce my “rules of the game” produced intense irritation in at least one attendee who wrote to me afterwards saying that I had immediately downgraded the potential contributions from the participants from an arts or humanities background for whom words are all important. I did not mean to do this but his reaction was perhaps correct as this revolution in science and the pre-eminent position it gave to experiment rather than opinion is often seen as the beginning of the divergence of science from arts into what a much later author, C.P. Snow called “the two cultures”. However if one reads the history of the subsequent centuries and looks at the literature produced, it is evident that educated men and women expected to be able to engage in both cultures, probably at least until the end of the 20th century. The aim of the WKD is of course to restore that earlier state of communication and continuum of understanding.
Forewords
xv
!N EXPERIMENT IN DIALOGUE The vehicle chosen by the first WKD symposium for developing these processes of communication was to use two overarching themes- “Complexity” and “Origins and migrations of modern humans”. The speakers to the themes had been engaged in pre-meeting discussions – sometimes face to face and sometimes through electronic media. At the meeting itself as well as the main speakers’ presentations, there were a range of short presentations, and extended discussions involving the whole participating audience. The aim was to identify, develop and refine a process for sharing views, a method to aid future discussion and perhaps to begin discussions that might eventually lead to reform of university education. These were certainly not minor aims or limited aspirations and that we did not fully achieve all (or even any) is no more than to be expected in such a new departure.
+EEP IT SIMPLE In my introduction I identified seven crucial rules for the debate and I believe these will stand for future dialogues : t Listen – all too often we hear but do not listen to what is being said because of our own education and culture ; t Explain yourself clearly- the audience is composed of people with very wide ranging backgrounds, and most likely different from your own ; t Leave your prejudices at the door ; t Avoid jargon ; t Be uncritical of others ideas ; t Be unafraid – carrying debate into someone else’s area of expertise can be very nerve wracking ; t But above all - enjoy the intellectual adventure ; I concluded my introductory remarks by explaining why I became engaged with the WKD. No-one can be blind to the enormous problems facing us in the 21st century – energy requirements, water – too much (floods) too little (drought), food production, health, aging populations. The list is terrifying. Science can identify these global problems and may provide some of the tools for dealing with them, but only society can truly solve them. The open and friendly dialogue between all intellectual capabilities is essential if we are to move forward.
)NTRODUCTION
&OR A 7ORLD +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE by Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte and Francis Waldvogel
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I– I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost (1874–1963), The Road Not Taken (1920) Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Albert Einstein
#ONSTRUCTING A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ACADEMIA´S ±TWO CULTURES² Knowledge, our priceless wealth of observations and discoveries, should – in order to remain valuable knowledge – be permanently enriched and reorganized by our history, our beliefs and our culture. Our perception of the world – whether gathered directly or through scientific equipment – is confronted daily with our personal experience, with the testimony of others ; what we “know” about life, evolution, democracy, social organizations, etc is the result of a permanent interplay of external information and personal interpretation, an everlasting interaction between the object we observe and the subject we are. Obvious though such a statement might appear when stated thus, is it really always the case ? Is this how knowledge has been perceived in the past and how it is understood today ? Are the supposedly more objective sciences, such as physics, biology, genetics, indeed in a permanent interplay with the realm of the social sciences, law, and philosophy ? Is their mutual understanding an achieved reality, a permanent quest, something that just happens naturally, or only an unachievable idealist fantasy ?
xx
Introduction
! DYNAMIC PROCESS Although complete unification and understanding between the natural / technical sciences and human / social sciences can never be achieved precisely because of the dynamic nature of the interplay between them, the effort to reconcile them – with its ups and downs – provides one of the most enriching discourses to have prevailed through scientific history of mankind. At various periods of history, the gap between cultures has been bridged and given us an encompassing view of mankind’s acquisitions in science and the humanities. More recently, however, this trend has changed : During the last three centuries, we have witnessed an explosion of the intellectual effort devoted to the pursuit of the natural / technical sciences, stimulated by the invention of the experimental scientific model. But a corollary effect of the enormous expansion of the natural and technical fields has been their fragmentation into scientific disciplines with increasing specialization of practitioners in these fields.
$IFFERENT CULTURES This effect has been so profound that in his famous Rede lecture of 1959, the physicist and writer C. P. Snow aptly described a generally perceived situation of cleavage existing between humanist and scientific intellectuals of the epoch. The situation he portrays is of two different cultures of research with utterly distinct manners of thought and practice, each totally incomprehensive of the other, mutually incapable of initiating any sort of dialogue. This apparent disjunction of the intellect into distinct modes of human thought, personified by the academic branches of the humanities and social sciences on the one hand and the natural and technical sciences on the other has been the basis for debate throughout the history and philosophy of science. It is more than ever relevant in the present day ; for no single discipline of study or individual branch of knowledge can hope to offer breakthrough solutions to the daunting problems of our civilization such as violence, self-afflicted diseases, unequal distribution of food and water, climate control, to name but a few.
#ONSILIENCE The idea of reconciliation between the primary different academic branches is close to E. O. Wilson’s original concept of consilience. It calls for members of all branches of the academic community to cooperate in an interdisciplinary perspective in a spirit of respect for the alternative systems of logic that are inherent to different cultures of study and research. E.O. Wilson’s inaugural address during the first Symposium of the World Knowledge Dialogue (available at WWWWKDIALOGUECH) reiterates the argument. To paraphrase Wilson : “There is no inherent epistemological fault-line between the different approaches to knowledge acquisition. Cooperative exploration enriches humankind’s capacity to comprehend itself and its environment and increases the body of knowledge available for transmission between individuals of different cultural, geographical and generational backgrounds”. The same rationale underpins the work of this book, which
For a World Knowledge Dialogue
xxi
touches upon an astounding diversity of interests and opinions and is brought together by its authors shared commitment to fostering cooperative exploration of the knowledge acquisition process by experts across the cultural and disciplinary spectrum.
7ORLD +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE The term “World Knowledge Dialogue” conjures up a colossal range of expectations among those who hear it. While such diversity is entirely appropriate to the aims of the World Knowledge Dialogue Foundation, we feel it necessary to specify that we have organized this publication with a few principal objectives ; to situate the current state of such a dialogue within a broader historical context ; to establish a conceptual framework within which to identify the essential elements of productive dialogue between the two cultures ; to identify where the most serious splits and epistemological divergences between academic disciplines currently lie in order to surpass the dualities that place them in opposition to each other ; to set in place a means of benchmarking the process of dialogue as a first step to ensuring that it evolves in a productive manner. By seeking to uncover the causes of misunderstanding and lack of mutual respect between the proponents of the two cultures we hope to demonstrate that their diversity of approach can be an asset rather than an obstacle to progress. Through the illustration of case studies in which different modes of thought and argumentation have been brought to bear on broad problematic themes, this publication aims to provide authoritative backing to the concept of multidisciplinary synergy as a generally applicable tool for problem solving.
3URPASSING DISCIPLINARY FRAGMENTATION The desire to facilitate a productive dialogue between the different branches of academia has become a central preoccupation within the upper echelons of teaching and research at national, European and global levels and is now frequently proclaimed in the public statements of their institutions. Rather than simply add to the chorus, we have set out to help transform the deceptively simple wish into a practical process of achievement ; by inviting researchers from across academia to situate the act of reflection at the very heart of complex issues which currently demand humanity’s most urgent attention ; by asking them to consider both the potential and the limitations of science to offer solutions to some of these pressing issues ; by encouraging them to appraise potential obstacles and conflicts of interest inherent to the process of dialogue in full conscience of the alternative. The gap between the natural / technical sciences and the humanities / social sciences can be considered as a particular case of the fragmentation of disciplines, but there is also more to it. Specialization in the natural sciences is a direct consequence of the reductionist approach of research, and is also influenced by the division of labor that prevails nowadays in all human endeavors, where it supposedly increases productivity and efficiency. In addition, specialization has been institutionalized, because it allows a clearer evaluation of performance, an easier attribution of resources, and a straightforward professional and public recognition : faculty structures, academic organizations, specially meetings and publication vehicles have all followed the same path, leading to a scientific world of
xxii
Introduction
the 21st century which is discipline-oriented, specialized and non communicative. The preconception that such a split makes for an efficient division of labor within society is enshrined in the structure of our educational policies as well as in the organization of our economies. Most academics make a clear and irrevocable commitment early on to pursuing a career direction in the natural sciences or the humanities. Few individuals find it possible to pursue both in any depth. The result of this mutually exclusive commitment is a marked disequilibrium in the value that many of us accord to these two complementary areas of knowledge.
#OMPLEXITY AND REDUCTIONISM This organization of how scientific research is conducted is now challenged by an important fact : in all evidence, the purely reductionist approach – a heritage of our industrial revolution – is no longer appropriate to the complexity of our material and living world. Indeed in many disciplines and institutions, there is already a growing trend towards adopting a multidisciplinary approach to scientific problems : systems biology is a case in point, characterized as a first attempt to put together our acquisitions in physics, chemistry, genetics, molecular and cell biology, informatics and robotics to reconstruct the processes subtending life and death into a comprehensive, internally consistent system. Ranging over vastly different scales – self-assembly processes, events at the nanometer level, astrobiology, the concepts of altruistic and aggressive behavior, climate change – are but a few other examples where the use of veritable arsenals of tools and methodologies converge. But the complexity of our world and the problem of how to integrate our knowledge of it becomes even greater as we reach beyond the objective world and include the human and social sciences in our quest for understanding. Although certain domains of these disciplines are amenable to a «scientific» approach as described above – for instance, experimental psychology, neurosciences, statistical branches of the social sciences – the bulk of intellectual activity in the humanities will never be amenable to such an approach. It betrays a lack of respect towards such disciplines to believe that their study is merely behind and will some day be performed with the sole armamentarium of the natural sciences. So just what are the fundamental issues responsible for the frequently perceived antagonism between the academic cultures of the natural / technical sciences and the humanities / social sciences ? And how can we set about resolving them ? Clearly a better and more broadly disseminated understanding of the distinct steps in the process of knowledge acquisition in the natural / technical sciences and in the human / social sciences, is necessary if we want to bridge the contemporary culture gap between them.
+NOWLEDGE ACQUISITION AS A MULTISTEP PROCESS Knowledge acquisition is a process that has been at the core of epistemological research. Epistemologists consider certain mental tools as either indispensable or highly advantageous to participating in the construction of our knowledge : for example the attributes of
For a World Knowledge Dialogue
xxiii
memory and consciousness are elementary ingredients for processes of acquisition ; and comparison, classification are used in both the natural sciences and in the humanities. Two other elementary mental tools are worth mentioning : perception and testimony. Perception is the first step in the process of data acquisition in the natural sciences, since there is no result without observation or experimentation. On the other hand, testimony can be viewed as the basic ingredient for creativity in the humanities ; history, social sciences, philosophy and ethics, require statements from others in order to create fertile ground for discussion. Of course this distinction may be considered as an exaggeration to make the point. Clearly in daily life, all humans enrich their personal knowledge base with implicit and explicit testimonies from others, but in the natural sciences, this testimony is considered dubious as long as not proven or independently verified. The humanities and social sciences also have a tool to reinforce the value of testimonies : coherence. Explanations, theories and testimonial observations must reinforce each other to result in a coherent intellectual construction. Coherence of various facts and ideas in the humanities has the same intellectual value as coherence of experiments and hypotheses in the natural science and could be a first platform of intellectual exchange.
4HE CASE STUDY CONCEPT The case-study concept of the WKD project is designed to provide a testing ground wherein the participants from all disciplines can rapidly acquire a minimum of shared information upon which to build. It is also intended to illustrate that the mental boundaries we choose to place between domains of expertise are mere operational concepts, tools of reductionist thinking that can be moved at will if there is an advantage to be drawn in doing so. However the principle of division into two clearly distinguished academic camps has held sway for so long, that we now have only the most rudimentary notion of where the territories of individual disciplines lie with respect to each other. Thus, in order to identify where the best potential for synergies between the different modes of thought, argumentation and action of the natural sciences and the humanities might lie, a first and foremost requirement might be to chart out a (still reductionist) virtual snapshot of current intellectual space that natural and social scientists alike can share. Of course when we talk about communication between academic cultures we really mean communication between the individuals who as a collective comprise the group that represents the culture. Better communication, when it comes about, is first effected at the level of individual researchers in individual disciplines. Each scientific or humanist discipline has its potential partners in the traditional camp of the «other culture», but these differ with each specific instance of cooperation due to the tremendous diversity of knowledge : astrobiology may benefit from links with philosophy, the issue of medical drug abuse with social sciences and psychology, children’s’ rights with pediatrics and social psychiatry etc. In each attempt, an inventory of what is just beyond reach within that discipline has to be established. As an example, in the field of anti-obesity research – regarded as a typical medical and public health problem – the limits to the progress of our understanding lie almost certainly outside these fields and only the integration of an effective means to instill behavioral changes (itself an ethical issue) would increase the likelihood of success.
xxiv
Introduction
Another possible approach to be explored in terms of looking for new ways to communicate between the cultures can be classified as systemic : certain domains of intellectual activity in their own right are also intrinsic tools of communication between the two cultures : mathematics, statistics, language theory are well established tools, but these examples are quite limited. History and philosophy of science are certainly neglected areas of communication with many potential bridges to offer. More recently, network theory, system theory, analysis of complex systems have shown how promising such approaches are. Finally, the opportunity for dialogue between knowledge fields is an exciting and open field for epistemologists : the basic questions being not “how do we learn ?” but “what are the limits of learning and understanding ?” “Which ones exist because of the limitations of our brains’ activities ?” and “which are a consequence of our mental constructs ?”
#OOPERATIVE EXPLORATION OF THE DYNAMICS OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION Any attempt to study the process of cross-disciplinary dialogue is faced with the lack of a truly objective means of defining what is commonly understood by the term interdisciplinary research. Therefore when setting in place our testing ground for analysis of interdisciplinary exchange mechanisms, we aimed to broadly represent a variety of approaches to interdisciplinary inquiry. The range of themes that were selected to initiate debate during the first WKD Symposium, invite cooperative inquiry at different levels of understanding. One debate, inspired by diverse aspects of the topic “Neurosciences” highlights how this highly successful, rapidly progressing, transcultural approach has begun to raise new fundamental questions in domains as far flung as philosophy, ethics and theology. In contrast, debate inspired by the theme of complexity, itself a newly emerging field of study by the natural science disciplines, highlights both the advantages and the limitations of adopting purely reductionist approaches to knowledge acquisition – the derivation of laws, principles, paradigms etc. As another example, the debate centered around the theme of a single specific issue of societal concern, namely human migration, highlights how its understanding has benefited from a comprehensive approach mobilizing forces from paleontology and anthropology to linguistics and molecular genetics. Finally the debate over issues of governance and institutional approaches to restructuring of education and research policy illustrates the impossibility of entirely dissociating the intellectual aspects of a general debate on knowledge acquisition from the political ones.
#OMPLEXITY AND NEUROSCIENCES IN DIALOGUE The publication is organized in five chapters, around diverse complementary themes, which contribute to the general reflection on the problem of a knowledge dialogue. The first chapter deals with the issue of complexity as encountered in the pioneering domain of cognitive science. Symposium presentations by Gerald M. Edelman (From Brain Dynamics to Consciousness : How Matter Becomes Imagination) and Jean-Pierre Changeux (Towards a Neuroscience of the Capable Person : Unity, Diversity and Oneself as Another), are available for consultation at WWWWKDIALOGUECH. They are set in the context of interdisciplinary stakes in the analyses by Frédéric Darbellay.
For a World Knowledge Dialogue
xxv
In his on-line conference, Gerald M. Edelman, one of the world’s most eminent neuroscientists, considers the quest to understand consciousness through the study of brain dynamics. Professor Edelman’s theory of “Neural Darwinism”, a multidisciplinary theory that combines insights about brain composition, connectivity, structure, function, and evolution, has great implications in the search for neural correlates of consciousness. He conveys in simple terms, what neurobiologists understand about a process known as neuronal group selection that describes how the brain is able to learn and adapt. In the second keynote lecture, one of the founding fathers of Neurobiology, Jean-Pierre Changeux, discusses Paul Ricoeur’s concept of a capable person, a rational and conscious individual engaged in social relationships and with personal identity and how the study of neuroscience, in particular cognitive neuroscience, can help us understand the evolutionary processes behind this capable person. An important message from the lecture is that the present-day vision of establishing a neuroscience of the capable person can become a reality but that work is still in progress. Like the ultimate aim to bridge the culture gap between humanities and natural sciences, the problems are dynamic and the solutions are not fixed.
.EW DISCOVERIES DE½NING COMPLEXITY The second chapter focuses on particular aspects of complexity, i.e. complexity and biological systems ; complexity in climatology ; complexity – an approach from epistemology and philosophy. Conference presentations by speakers on this theme, Geoffrey West (Searching for Simplicity in Complexity ; Growth, Innovation, Economies of Scale, and the Pace of Life from Cells to Cities), John Schellnhuber (Understanding and Managing Planetary Complexity) and Ian Hacking (Why Physics is Easy and Autism is Hard), are available on the World Knowledge Dialogue Internet site (WWWWKDIALOGUEORG). The content of the first two conferences is enriched by editorial summaries by Moira Cockell and Francis Waldvogel. An article written by Ian Hacking himself accompanies the third conference. Each symposium presenter exposes both his own work and new discoveries in the broad field of Complexity. More than just a showcase for different research areas, the speakers discuss seminal works in their respective domains that attempt to simplify problems and look at complexity from the point of view of both the natural sciences and the social / human sciences – in order to arrive at a more lucid and unified understanding of the topic. Complexity manifests itself in systems ranging from individual organisms to the largest economic, technical, social, and political systems. All the methods that try to handle it do so by trying to understand its dynamic, non-linear behavior. By confronting and allowing these approaches to interact, by exchanging views on different complex systems, we expect to gain new ideas and to try to shed light on such questions as : Which way did science work until now, how did it evolve, and how might it evolve in the future ? How can big pictures emerge from a sea of data ? Can certain biological processes be defined quantitatively to reveal an underlying simplicity ? Can the complexity of social organizations be modeled using methods similar to those used in other systems, and result in general formulas that predict societal behavior ? Theoretical physicist Geoffrey West, president of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), poses such questions in his presentation. John Schell-
xxvi
Introduction
nhuber, Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, talks about complexity involved in atmospheric dynamics. His own answers to the central question “Why is planet Earth alive ?” are discussed in terms of the phenomenon of a global carbon cycle. Professor Schellnhuber invokes the Cambrian Explosion and Lovelock’s Gaia theory and explains why, in a billion years the Earth will have fallen out of the habitable zone of the solar system. He predicts that at the current rate of unchecked development, global warming will have reached a point of no return by 2080 and argues that the situation warrants natural and social scientists to come together to find ways to break the urbanization mode in which we currently exist. In essence, Schellnhuber emphasizes that a global movement is imperative for such an auto-evolution to be successful. For Ian Hacking, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy of the University of Toronto, Canada, and member of the Collège de France in Paris, complexity has an essential ontological aspect that is often overlooked. Complexity is frequently depicted in terms of an object in the world. But in Hacking’s view, complexity is not “in things” but is a “relation between people and things”. It is goal-directed or context-driven. For instance a common object such as a leaf, which is simple for most people, is a subject involving complex details for a plant physiologist. Hacking elaborated the argument that we should comprehend complexity in terms of what we want to understand, predict and / or control. It is in this context that he chose the intriguing title of his presentation : Why Physics is Easy and Autism is Hard. The speaker mentioned two of his recent interests – studying the physics of absolute zero and autism in children. Evolving over eleven years, the two have become fields of major research. The title comes from his observation that while to the uninitiated both fields appear to be equally complex, much is known today about physics in the ultra-cold domain of absolute zero whereas autism still remains an almost total enigma.
2E¾ECTIONS ON COMPLEXITY AND KNOWLEDGE DIALOGUE The third chapter in the collection is dedicated to diverse reflections by WKD 2006 participants, about complexity within the context of a knowledge dialogue. In a contribution entitled Knowing Complex Systems : The limits of understanding, Paul Cilliers (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa) attempts to characterize and define the potential and limitations of different tools employed in the field of research. He presents a viewpoint of the social sciences in terms of a complex system and argues that due to their non-linear nature, such complex systems are not compressible or amenable to reductionist approaches. His perspective on complexity contrasts with the simplification principle that his natural scientist counterparts usually work towards attaining. As complex systems are open systems, he argues, they cannot be understood completely without also understanding their environments and their history. In similar vein, Edward G. Slingerland (University of British Columbia, Canada) argues in Consilience and the Status of Human-Level Truth that one of the primary barriers to humanities / natural science dialogue is the intuition that integrating human-level truths into a scientific framework is somehow inappropriately “reductionist”. In search of “consilience” between the natural sciences and humanities, he reflects on the mind-body dualism that appears to be an inextricable part of innate human cognitive endowment. In his contribution Boundaries : Boundaries between disciplines and boundaries in the mind, Ernest Hartmann (Tufts University School of Medicine, Bos-
For a World Knowledge Dialogue
xxvii
ton, USA) treats the concept of boundaries, providing an interesting foil to the earlier discussions on complexity viewed from many perspectives by discussing the concept of boundaries and limits from the vantage point of psychiatric research : Abstraction of the complex, dynamic and multidimensional nature of mental boundaries and understanding how different boundaries influence each other, may guide us to make choices that permit natural and social sciences to work better in unison. The article by Daniela Finke (University of Basel, Switzerland) An immunologist’s view on establishment of a knowledge dialogue argues that in order to better understand the complex nature of biological systems, immunologists like herself need both profound knowledge of their specialist subject and dialogue with other disciplines. She addresses the question of how such a dialogue between immunologists and representatives of other disciplines can be achieved in practice. Finally, some perspectives and pitfalls of transdisciplinary dialogue in academia are reviewed. The article of Mark M. Freed (Central Michigan University, USA) Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism sketches a genealogy of thinking about the integration of the sciences and humanities in order to raise some questions about what a methodology of crossed views might look like. The three theorists discussed (Jürgen Habermas, Jean-François Lyotard, and Bruno Latour) offer critical accounts of Modernity that alert us to important considerations in carrying out such integration. His observations do not add up to a single methodology of crossed views, but they point to considerations that ought to be factored into attempts to reconfigure the relations between the sciences and the humanities. This chapter finishes with the contribution of Michel Alhadeff-Jones, (Columbia University and Université de Paris 8) Promoting scientific dialogue as a lifelong learning process, in which his perspective of dialogue between sciences and between scientists is elaborated. He considers this dialogue as a complex and critical learning process. He argues that it can be conceived in several ways – as conversation, expression, performance and negotiation –and is a process of transformation of knowledge from one form to another. From a practical point of view, he suggests that this logic argues for applying novel concepts gleaned from studies of science as a social practice and about researchers as adult learners to the design and management of dialogue forums like the World Knowledge Dialogue.
/RIGINS AND MIGRATIONS OF MODERN HUMANS Chapter four is focused on particular aspects of complexity at the crossroads between the domains of paleontology, anthropology, genetics and linguistics. The symposium presentations of Ofer Bar-Yosef (Human Migrations in Prehistory – the Cultural Record), Bernard Victorri (The Origins of Modern Humans : Linguistic Issues) and Svante Pääbo (A Genetic View of Human Origins) are available for consultation online at WWWWKDIA LOGUECH. Editorial summaries of these conferences by Moira Cockell describe their content. The problem of human origins has long been a natural pivot for interdisciplinarity, attracting the efforts of researchers from diverse fields such as archaeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics and psychology. This chapter describes an exercise in interdisciplinary dialogue between proponents of technically demanding specialties that have evolved complex vocabulary repertoires specific to their own domain. Three eminent scientists present separately derived perspectives that converge on the topic at hand. Ofer Bar-Yosef, Pro-
xxviii
Introduction
fessor of Anthropology at Harvard University and internationally acclaimed archaeologist, guides the listener at an exhilarating pace, through 5 million years of human evolution. His discourse traces the migration of prehistoric humans, using evidence derived from observations of cultural developments and trajectories. He also incorporates arguments based on molecular and nuclear genetic evidence to build the case for the emergence of mankind from Africa. Bernard Victorri, Director of Linguistics research at CNRS, Lattice Laboratory, France, gives a linguist’s viewpoint on the question of human origins. He attempts to mirror the process of human migration in his description of the development of the rich diversity of human language and argues that the methodology of constructing language families may shed new light on ancient language relationships that have become obscured among the background noise of language evolution. The relationships he has uncovered appear to confirm the out-of-Africa emergence theories as well as propose new migratory patterns for humans. They show how language theories, a kind of human science, may help validate claims laid by natural science disciplines like genetics. Svante Pääbo, Director of the Department of Genetics at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany then presented his view on human migration based on genetic studies. He proposes that most genetic variation present within the world’s present populations also supports the hypothesis of humankind’s African origins. He also gives his view of the implications of his recent research on the FOXP2 gene ; a gene thought to be involved in conferring to humans the evolutionary advantage of articulated speech and language, that is nonetheless highly conserved in mammals. He envisions following the evolution of subtle genetic changes in FOX2P as a way to trace the exact timepoints of the divergence between chimpanzees, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. This chapter presents the real possibility of disparate disciplines converging to tackle comprehensive problems and illustrates the principle of coherence as an assessment tool when verging into domains where the natural scientist’s concept of “proof ” is inappropriate. Further study of the modes through which the problem of human origins is approached may suggest analogous methods through which other inter-disciplinary dialogue may proceed.
!CADEMIC INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCES The final chapter deals with the institutional and academic dimensions that relate to a knowledge dialogue in the widest sense of the term and describes several transdisciplinary initiatives and experiences as seen from the context of researchers in different career stages and different cultural environments. In the first contribution ; (Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World, Richard R. Ernst (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Switzerland) gives his own view of what should be the role and responsibilities of institutions and individuals involved in education, in a world that he deems to be presently on a non-sustainable course. He argues that universities’ role in educating the future political, economic, and spiritual leaders gives them a particularly strong responsibility to attempt to change this situation. According to him, academics as a body have a moral obligation to interest themselves in trans-disciplinary and trans-cultural connections because, he believes, it is where the clues to solving society’s major problems are likely to come from. In this context, the work of Veronica Boix Mansilla (Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University) offers a series of
For a World Knowledge Dialogue
xxix
analytical and semi-quantitative insights into the dynamics of successful interdisciplinary dialogue (Patterned diversity in interdisciplinary dialogues : Lessons from an empirical study of interdisciplinary research at the frontier). In recent years, interdisciplinary research has been equated with all things novel, collaborative and adventurous. Under closer scrutiny, cross disciplinary dialogue confronts researchers with new communicative and epistemic demands, including the demand of establishing consensus on what constitutes a productive dialogue and a fruitful interdisciplinary synthesis. This paper synthesizes the lessons learned in an empirical study of interdisciplinary work by acclaimed experts at five major research institutions in the Unites States. The other pieces in this chapter are testimonies describing the motivations, current status and challenges encountered, in specific and concrete examples of interdisciplinary dialogue that are taking place in a selection of the higher research and teaching establishments from several different countries. In order of appearance in the text, are contributions from Timon P. McPhearson and colleagues (Columbia University) : Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education : A Case Study from “Frontiers of Science” at Columbia University, Markus B. Karner (Singapore Management University) : Organizing Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue in Academia : Debating Complexity and Organic Development at Singapore Management University, Akimasa Sumi (University of Tokyo) : New initiatives of the University of Tokyo toward establishing a strategy for sustainability through knowledge structuring and a transdisciplinary approach and Zalina Ismail (Universiti Sains Malaysia) BRAINetwork : An Experiment in Transdisciplinarity. The chapter closes with three texts from young researchers who express their personal views on the practice of interdisciplinary dialogue in a more general, abstract sense of the term. Ravi de Costa (York University) reflects on the complex relations between Knowledge and ethnic culture and sets out the views and experiences of interdisciplinary research held by a early-career social scientist. Mary Louise Gifford (The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi) discusses the links between science and society The Paradigm Shift in the Relationship Between Science and Society, within the context of her own experience in working as an assistant to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dan T. A. Eisenberg (Northwestern University) presents a graduate student’s perspective on the current state of health of anthropology as a pivot for multidisciplinary dialogue in his article entitled Anthropology in the United States- when dialogue IS the discipline : A multilevel evolutionary consideration of knowledge production. In concluding this brief overview of the rich and diverse contributions to this book, we invite readers to peruse the detail for themselves and give free reign to the multiple and complex influences it will have on their own perceptions of a world knowledge dialogue.
#HAPTER #OMPLEXITY AND .EUROSCIENCES IN $IALOGUE 4OWARDS A .EW 4HEORY OF THE "RAIN
&ROM "RAIN $YNAMICS TO #ONSCIOUSNESS (OW -ATTER "ECOMES )MAGINATION Analysis by Frédéric Darbellay of the presentation1 by Gerald M. Edelman
Prevalent views of higher brain functions are based on the notions of computation and information processing. These views suggest that the brain can be viewed as a Turing machine. Edelman argues that various lines of evidence appear to be incompatible with this position and suggest instead that the brain operates according to a set of selection principles.1 Most approaches to the understanding of consciousness are concerned with the contributions of specific brain areas or groups of neurons. By contrast, in considering what kinds of neural processes can account for key properties of conscious experience such as its unity and its diversity, the research undertaken by G.M. Edelman and his research group at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego addresses a general theory of the brain and consciousness. Their findings have been published in a series of books that are accessible to a broad audience : [Edelman, 1987, 1989, 1992, 2004, 2006], [Edelman and Tonioni, 2000].
! NEUROSCIENTI½C VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS The study of consciousness has historically been the domain of philosophy, but recent technological advances have led to the development of new and complementary approaches to this complex issue. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and magnetoencephalography (MEG), now permits observation of the blood flows that accompany localized neuronal activity in different parts of the brain as well as enabling the magnetic micro-variations triggered by inter-neuronal electrical currents to be monitored. The results of studies conducted using such techniques provide supporting evidence for neu1
A video of the presentation is available at HTTP WWWWKDIALOGUECH.
4
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
ral correlates of consciousness in human subjects. Edelman’s group has also constructed unique, brain-based devices (BBDs) based on the theoretical principles he has elucidated. These have in turn allowed Edelman and co-workers to study detailed neural dynamics during behavior in a real world environment and suggest the possibility of constructing a conscious artifact in the foreseeable future. The impact of such developments is not merely technical. The ability to observe physiological changes in the working brain at a level of resolution that permits their precise correlation with the specific complex sensory-motor and / or cognitive tasks being undertaken, has led to a rethinking of mechanisms underlying thought and consciousness. The multidimensional phenomena of the mind and of the conscious being are no longer the exclusive province of the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, metaphysics or ethics, but are rather an area for constructive dialogue between these fields and the contemporary cognitive neurosciences.
#ONSCIOUSNESS A COMPLEX PHENOMENON AT THE CROSSROADS BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY The strong hypothesis underlying Edelman’s work and, more broadly, the field of cognitive neurosciences itself is that psychological phenomena in general and consciousness in particular are entirely appropriate subjects for investigation by the scientific method. Recent advances in the neurosciences offer a number of promising avenues for the scientific exploration of consciousness that take into account not only the dynamic nature of cerebral functions but also the obligatory context-dependence in which all cognitive activity (e.g. perception, vision, memory, etc) takes place (perception, vision, memory, etc). The scientific analysis of consciousness derives from a central question : how and in what way can the activation of neurons give rise to sensations, thoughts, and subjective experiences ? Apparent in the very formulation of this question is the notion that the fields of biology and psychology are not separate but overlapping ; they must meet, reconcile, and join forces to gain an understanding of the dynamics and the reciprocal causalities that unite them despite their differences.
4HE BRAIN IS NOT A 4URING MACHINE The goal of this research field is to develop a new theory of consciousness based on the way our brain actually functions [Edelman, 2006]. The approach depends on understanding these processes and seeks to explain the molecular mechanisms of consciousness, cognitive function and dysfunction, as well as the various forms of cognitive activity. Learned behavior, memorization, and cognitive activity in general, mobilize extremely complex brain functions. The enormous neuronal plasticity manifested by the exercise of such functions exemplifies the principal that the human brain is not a predetermined system but rather has an innate capacity to be ever changing according to experience and interactions with psychological and social environments. The complexity of the brain has multiple levels of organization that range from the microstructure of proteins to cellular interactions, from the cell to the organ, from the organ to the macroscopic organism in
From Brain Dynamics to Consciousness : How Matter Becomes Imagination
5
its totality. Thus, the analysis of consciousness needs also to be perceived in terms of a multi-layered system that extends from the analysis of intersynaptic linking molecules all the way to the total brain. The difficulty lies in passing from a purely descriptive characterization of cerebral function to an explanation of the nature and the functional unity of complex cognitive functions like consciousness.
(UMAN COGNITION PROVIDES A COMMON ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The difficult task set out by current neuroscience research is to bridge the gap which has long separated natural sciences from the humanities by attempting to express the differences and the similarities between them within a common analytical framework addressing the function of human cognition. To do so, it draws on the range of different disciplines that examine the complex relations linking the concept of the psyche to the biological function of the neuronal system. Understanding these interactions requires recourse to many domains of expertise, including biochemistry, immunology, medical imaging, evolutionary biology and psychology. This interdisciplinarity safeguards against a strictly materialist approach that would reduce consciousness and other cognitive activities to mere biological function. It also avoids the risk of falling into an opposite reductionism that would relegate all phenomena of the psyche to purely psychological or social functions by arbitrarily neutralizing the role of cerebral functions and even denying the physical-biological dimensions that underlie all cognitive action. The study of consciousness is now resolutely at the intersection between neurobiological sciences, the humanities and the social sciences. A central theme is concerned with the way in which biology relates to the psychological activities of a thinking being. The focused questions that can be asked within this context are myriad ; what are the biological bases for the emergence of visual perception, sensory-motor activities, or higher consciousness of humans ? How does memory function ? How far is it possible to understand and explain consciousness by scientifically analyzing cerebral function ? Research on consciousness is progressing rapidly and in the process is already transcending the traditional divisions among biological, psychological and social sciences in order to link them within the new domain of cognitive science. This interdisciplinary reconfiguration leads to the elimination of the famous Cartesian mind-body duality, which argued that perceived reality, i.e. humans’ conscious life, could not be explained without reference to two different and irreducible principles, the world Descartes divided into res extensa (physical) and res cogitans (mind, spirit). In contrast Edelman’s view incorporates tacit acceptance that the functions of mind and body are interdependent entities.
#ONSCIOUSNESS AS AN EMERGING CONDITION OF NEURONAL ORGANIZATION The body of Edelman’s work in the years from 1987-2006 is founded on a postulate of scientific materialism according to which consciousness is considered as an emerging condition of the neuronal organization of the brain. While this puts it roughly within the tradition of analytical psychology that was founded by Gustav Fechner (1801-1887), and further elaborated by Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) and William James (1842-1910),
6
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
Edelman’s contributions have also radically modified fundamental conceptions by incorporating the spectacular advances of contemporary neurosciences. They avoid the risk of biological reductionism by focusing on a specific aspect of the anatomy of the brain with respect to the physiology of neuronal zones and circuits that appear to be related to particular states of consciousness. The function of the brain, both in its entirety and in the sub-regions of the cortex involves a high level of plasticity and depends in part on changes linked to the nature of its use. This dependence on context implies that there exists a dynamic variation in the operational circuits of the brain. The example of visual perception is particularly illuminating in this context. The diagram reproduced in Figure 1, elaborated by G. Kanizsa in the tradition of Gestalttheorie is reconsidered in some of Edelman’s work [Edelman, 1992, 2004]. In its upper part, it represents two superimposed triangles whose angles are disconnected but give the impression of a white triangle with undefined but nevertheless clear borders. This first perceptual illusion is interesting because it shows that the white triangle appears in and through contextual interaction : it is the three black objects at the summit of the angles, which create the context within which the white triangle emerges distinctly from the background of a second triangle. Neither triangle exists, however, in and of itself. It is the brain, on the basis of an active and differential perception within a given context, which constructs them. The role of context in subconscious visual perception is also evident in the optical illusion illustrated in the lower part of the diagram. When moving one’s field of vision from left to right, the observer passes from a relatively disjointed perception of 8 angular micro-figures to the mental perception of a three dimensional cube that is partially obstructed by three transversal opaque bands. Visual perception in these cases is not simply a passive recording of external stimuli but rather a complex process of mental and physical co-construction dependent on context.
Fig. 1 Triangles and cubes of Kanizsa
From Brain Dynamics to Consciousness : How Matter Becomes Imagination
7
#ONTEXT IS EVERYTHING Similarly, the notion of an interaction between cerebral function and context is also manifest in the brain’s conscious activities. This point is illustrated by the models Edelman proposes of causal chains [Edelman, 2004] (and see Fig. 2), which are established between the brain, the body and the world, via what he calls the dynamic core. According to this hypothesis, conscious processes emerge from a large number of re-entrant interactions (the bidirectional transmission of information between the groups of neurons) through which the cognitive system, the brain and the rest of the body interact. The dynamic core plays a central role in this interactive process : this term refers to a system of interactions among groups of neurons, present especially in the thalamocortical system. These neurons behave like a functional cluster in which reentrant interactions amplify certain signals and give way to states of consciousness. The reentrant activity of the dynamic core serves as an interface among the complex interactions of the brain, the body, and the outside world via real experience and behavior of the human subject. The nature of different brain states such as sleeping, waking, conscious, unconscious, results from the particular dynamic interactions that occur at the point where brain functions, memory systems and contextdependent information meet. Conscious experience is thus a dynamic process and not a thing in itself, to paraphrase William James (1842-1910).
Fig. 2 Causal chains : the dynamic core.
.EURAL $ARWINISM One of the essential points of Edelman’s work is to demonstrate that neuronal and cognitive activities are not automats or Turing machines ; they do not operate as closed systems but are rather only perceivable in terms of their dynamic interactions with the body and the contextual environment. We conclude this brief presentation by referring to one of the most significant contributions of G.M. Edelman’s work : TNGS (Theory of Neuronal Group Selection). This theory is also called neural Darwinism because it was inspired by the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), The major tenets of Darwin’s theory of selection of the fittest from a population with a rate of naturally occurring variation, have been expanded and refined to apply to the study of cognitive functions and their adaptive relation to environmental and contextual variability. Neural Darwinism is a general theory of the organization and functioning of the brain and attempts to
8
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
integrate the contributions of anatomy, evolutionary biology, and psychology. Reference to the Darwinian principle of natural selection is one of the constants within the corpus of Edelman’s research, being already apparent in his Nobel-prize winning contributions to our understanding of the immune system and recurrent in his early contributions in the field of neurobiology as well as in his later attempts to explain cognitive aspects of perception, memory, language, and consciousness. The Darwinian principle of selection / adaptation also extends from the neural-anatomical and biochemical levels of neural networks to more general psychological and philosophical aspects linked to consciousness and superior cognitive capacities.
.EURAL CORRELATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection / TNGS sheds new light on the complex question of consciousness and its link to human brain activity. It adopts a Darwinian model by identifying the complementary principles of variation and selection in its analysis of the central nervous system. TNGS is based on three fundamental principles [Edelman, 1992, 2004] and cf. Fig. 3 below) : 1. Developmental selection gives rise to a set of diverse neuronal circuits. Vast repertories of circuits within the microanatomy of the brain are established during the brain’s development. The genetic code does not supply the specific diagram of connections but rather defines a set of constraints on the selection process. 2. Experiential selection refers to changes in the strength of connections among synapses that selectively favor certain pathways, reinforcing some and weakening others. A secondary repertoire (sets of variants in a selective system) of functional neuronal circuits forms on the basis of the existing neuroanatomy by means of a selective reinforcement of groups of specified neurons and a weakening of the synaptic effectiveness of other affiliated neurons. cell division cell death
(1) Developmental Selection yielding 1° repertoire time 1 (2)
Expriential Selection
process extension and elimination CAM action
time 2
changes in stengths of population of synapses
yielding 2° repertoire
time 2
stimuli time 1 (3)
Reentrant Mapping
Map 1
Map 2
stimuli stimuli to map 1 to map 2 time 1
Map 1
Map 2
time 2
Fig. 3 The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection (TNGS), or Neuronal Darwinism.
From Brain Dynamics to Consciousness : How Matter Becomes Imagination
9
3. Reentry assures spatial-temporal correlation and conscious integration among neuronal group maps. This key process coordinates cerebral maps through continual reentry signaling across reciprocal connections. The circles on the right side of the map indicate reinforced synapses. Reentry refers to the permanent and dynamic process of recursive signaling passing through massively reciprocal fibers, which connect the maps, built in each of the cortical zones. The integrative process achieved by reentry links the content of these zones though linking fibers in the associative cortex and is the basis for the emergence of consciousness by virtue of the function of the dynamic core, which allows coherent and synchronous events to appear in the brain. Starting with the selective processes (1 and 2) that concern repertories of neuronal variants, a series of neuronal networks and functional circuits are created in order to build a second repertoire of selective events. Later and continual reentrant events in (3) are dynamic and recursive processes that continually reconfigure the maps. During embryogenesis, a repertoire of neuronal circuits is created in the brain. These circuits are either reinforced or weakened by developmental and experimental selection and by a process of reentrant maps. The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection is a theory of emerging consciousness both from the point of view of evolution and of neurophysiology, and posits a significant plasticity of thalamo-cortical networks and interactions. Neuronal systems are thus evolutionary systems that take into account and integrate factors derived from ongoing experience. The theory of the brain proposed by Edelman is based on a model of the emergence and function of consciousness rooted in the double principles of selection and adaptation : epigenetic development occurs though selective stabilization of synapses dependent on the topology of the network of connections that are established among groups of neurons. The design of these neural connections is established at birth but they are not fixed in cerebral time or space. They evolve in response to sensory stimulations. Certain combinations of connections will be more or less stabilized, while others will be dismantled and reconfigured. Consciousness is considered as a process that can in part be explained by specific forms of organization of neurobiological material. The connectivity among groups of neurons in the brain emerges through a course of generalized variation-selection that produces the intra- and inter-group architecture of neurons distributed through numerous different zones of the brain, resulting ultimately in the complex cognitive functions such as perception, memorization, categorization, and consciousness. Neural Darwinism offers a heuristic tool to analyze and understand the complexity of the human brain, whose neuronal building blocks are organized into interactive networks that are neither deterministic nor purely linear, because they both differentiate in response to, and interact with, information coming from the psychological and social contexts. Here there is no reductive materialism ; consciousness is nothing without the body ; it is a dynamic process and not an object fixed in time and space ; and it is thus unique to each individual and to each moment in time. The brain is without a doubt one the most complex systems to undergo scientific analysis, a subject Wider than the Sky, to echo Emily Dickinson’s poetic reference.
10
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. The brain is deeper than the sea, For, hold them, blue to blue, The one the other will absorb, As sponges, buckets do. The brain is just the weight of God, For, lift them, pound for pound, And they will differ, if they do, As syllable from sound. Emily Dickinson (1830 - 1886) : Complete Poems, 1924.
2EFERENCES Edelman, G. M. (1987) Neural Darwinism : The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, Basic Books, New York. Edelman, G. M. (1989) The Remembered Present : A Biological Theory of Consciousness, Basic Books, New York. Edelman, G. M. (1992) Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. On the Matter of the Mind, Basic Books, New York. Edelman, G. M. (2004) Wider Than the Sky : The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness, Yale University Press, Yale. Edelman, G. M (2006) Second Nature : Brain Science and Human Knowledge, Yale University Press, Yale. Edelman, G. M., Tononi, G. (2000) A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination, Basic Books, New York.
!DDITIONAL LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS Baars, B. J. (1988) A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Damasio, A. R. (1994) Descartes’ Error : Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, Grosset/Putnam, New York. Chalmers, D. J. (1996) The Conscious Mind. In Search of a Fundamental Theory, Oxford University Press, New York. James, W. (1981) The Principles of Psychology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Kim, J. (1998) Mind in a Physical World : An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation, The MIT Press, Cambridge. Koch, C. (2004) The Quest for Consciousness : A Neurobiological Approach, Roberts & Company Publishers. McGinn, C. (1996) The Problem of Consciousness : Essays Towards a Resolution, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Metzinger, T. (Ed.) (2000) Neural Correlates of Consciousness : Empirical and Conceptual Questions, The MIT Press, Cambridge. Nagel, T. (1979) Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press, New York. Papineau, D. (2002) Thinking about Consciousness, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Searle, J. R. (1997) The Mystery of Consciousness, Granta Books, London.
4OWARDS A .EUROSCIENCE OF THE #APABLE 0ERSON 5NITY $IVERSITY AND /NESELF AS !NOTHER Analysis by Frédéric Darbellay of the presentation2 by Jean-Pierre Changeux
La science n’a pas la philosophie qu’elle mérite. Gaston Bachelard (1953) Il existera toujours une marge d’incertitude, une frange de remise en question pour toute avancée de la connaissance scientifique. Est-ce une raison pour renoncer à en savoir plus ? Jean-Pierre Changeux (2002)
Jean-Pierre Changeux sets out to establish a plausible bridge between the humanities and the neurosciences based on Paul Ricœur’s concept of the capable person, defined as a rational and conscious individual engaged in social relationships and with personal identity, in other words able to perceive of “oneself as another”. He asks us to consider if cognitive neuroscience can help us understand the individual as a member of society, and conversely, what can one anticipate as an impact of such debate on the evolution of the neuroscience ?
0ARADOXES Starting from apparent paradoxes in our “scientific” knowledge of the biology and evolution of the human brain and its capacities, Changeux invites us along a path of logical stepping stones that lead from the genomic and epigenetic organization of the human brain, to the generation of cultural diversity, social communication and ethical considerations. 2
A video of the presentation is available at HTTP WWWWKDIALOGUECH
12
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
He explains how it is now becoming possible to study the neurobiology of concepts such as self, personal memories, internalized rules, social conventions and violence inhibition mechanisms and proposes that this is not only theoretically and experimentally plausible, but ethically desirable. Changeux makes powerful arguments that the pursuit of objective knowledge and scientific enquiry can provide a force of reconciliation at the world scale level and be a step towards a modern secular humanism.
! DIALOGUE OF THE NEUROSCIENCES Research in the neurosciences undertaken since 1975 by Jean-Pierre Changeux at the Institut Pasteur have substantially contributed to the enrichment of fundamental knowledge about the relationship between cognitive skills and the molecular and neuronal functions of the human brain. His research work is also the focus of the courses he has taught at the Collège de France, where he held the chair in Cellular Communications (1976-2006). Beyond the prescribed domain of cognitive neurosciences, Changeux’s scientific work is characterized by openness toward and interaction with other research areas related to philosophy, ethics, the arts, society, and culture. Since writing his famous book L’Homme neuronal [Changeux, 1983], translated in English as Neuronal Man [Changeux, 1985], which established a basis for major discoveries about human brain functions, he has adopted a non-reductionist view of complex thought mechanisms in which the development of the nervous system takes place in the context of individual trajectories and in interaction with the physical and sociocultural context.
.EUROSCIENCES AND HUMANISM Even though refractory to reductionism, mental activities are partly explained by biological functions of the brain and are thus linked both to their physiological, anatomical basis and to the social context through which they acquire meaning. This anti-reductionist position provides the opportunity for an interdisciplinary dialogue with multiple networks at the different levels constituting human psycho-physical activities (individual, psychological, social). This double path both deepens disciplinary understanding within the neurosciences and progressively opens this research domain toward an interchange with other types of knowledge. One of the inspirations for this openness to interdisciplinarity is found in Conversations on Mind Matter and Mathematics [Changeux and Connes, 1995], co-authored with the mathematician Alain Connes and translated from the original [Changeux and Connes, 1989], which seeks to examine the links between the nature of mathematical objects and the structure of the human brain, understood in its full complexity. This broadening of research horizons is also evident in the importance granted to ethical aspects of scientific research. Changeux, who was president of the National Consultative Bioethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences (CCNE), used the occasion of a 1991 scientific gathering of psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, jurists, and neurobiologist to examine the multidimensional question of ethics and the role played by biological sciences in this context [Changeux, 1993]. This reflection about the ethical implications of research contin-
Towards a Neuroscience of the Capable Person : Unity, Diversity and Oneself as Another
13
ues in another collective work edited by Changeux [Changeux, 1997], in which progress of scientific knowledge and the development of new biomedical technologies are clearly put into perspective in the course of discussion about evolving ethical, cultural, moral, philosophical, and religious values in contemporary society. This open dialogue between specialists from the life sciences and the humanities finds common ground in the goal to understand the complexity of the human brain, which unites knowledge about genetic mechanisms in a constructive interaction with values of ethnic and cultural diversity [Changeux, 2003].
3CIENCE AND ART Aesthetics is also an area subject to particular attention from Changeux. Based on advances in neurosciences and cognitive psychology, he tries to understand the complex mechanisms that result in esthetic pleasures, both from the perspective of creation and contemplation of the arts [Changeux, 1994]. Similarly, Changeux explores the naturally transdisciplinary theme of light, in terms of an object of scientific study and as the subject of philosophical and artistic reflection, from the complementary perspectives of the history of art, the history of science, astrophysics, and biology [Changeux, 2005]. Situated on the boundary between scientific data, technology developments, and artistic creations, this work invites us to follow the history of ideas from the XVIIIth century to the present and shows the tight linkages between the development of scientific methods and theories and the joint evolution of mentalities, societies, and cultures. In this brief overview of an rich and diverse intellectual trajectory a particular line of thought moves from neurosciences to esthetics, by way of ethics, with the underlying principal that these diverse domains of knowledge, apparently disconnected can be linked and discussed together, thereby dispelling the notion that disparate scientific fields are irremediably closed off from one another. In this process one can identify a form of modern humanism in the sense that the scholars seek points of contact and articulations among the sciences, more precisely among sciences of the brain, philosophy, ethics, esthetics, sociology, and culture.
/NE TO ONE In this context, it is important to emphasize the dialogue between Changeux and Paul Ricœur in their dual production [Changeux and Ricœur, 1998], translated in English [Changeux and Ricœur, 2005]. The exchange between neurosciences and philosophy has become ever more necessary while the much desired communication remains difficult because the stakes, the logics, the concepts, and the methods that accompany the construction of knowledge in these domains are relatively divergent. The common effort of Changeux and Ricœur is nevertheless valuable because it acknowledges from the outset the confrontation among scientific paradigms and then proceeds to argue points of view from the perspective of a constructive and interdisciplinary dialogue between science and philosophy about progress in the neurosciences and its ethical implications. Their goal is to build bridges between neuronal man, whose actions depend on complex mechanisms of the cerebral system, and man in action as a subject evolving within the social world
14
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
who cannot be reduced to his biological functions. The philosopher and the biologist are invited to move away from confrontation and rather to dialogue to understand the complexity of the human subject in its totality. This attempt to overcome the independence and boundaries of the fields of neurobiology and philosophy acknowledges and confronts the disciplinary prejudices that see the philosopher reproaching the neurobiologist for his reductionism or the neurobiologist accusing the philosopher of abstract discussions of human nature that neglect the biological dimension of behavior. Ignored, this double reproach can only exacerbate institutionalized disciplinary divisions and reinforce misunderstandings about the impossibility of communication. Dialogue is often difficult but its necessity has perhaps become inevitable and thus the approach that Changeux and Ricœur promote is particularly valuable.
&ROM NEURONAL PERSON TO CAPABLE PERSON The concept of the capable person as defined in Soi-même comme un autre [Ricœur, 1990], translated into English as Oneself as Another [Ricœur, 1992], defines man as a being aware of the consequences of his acts and implicated in the dynamics of his context-dependent actions. What characterizes humanity is the capacity of man to be himself as he interacts with others. Man is a conscious actor, capable of speech and actions within a social context that incorporates values defined both by the self and by the other. To be oneself is to have one’s own identity even as one reflects that of the other : identity is constructed by oneself and through another in a sort of coming together of the difference of the other with one’s own identity. The concept of self, or consciousness of self, is not an immediate given. It is rather co-constructed through mediation with the other. It is made and remade in practical interaction with the world. The capable person is the product of a whole life from birth to death and is a complex identity with a double structure that corresponds to Ricœur’s terminology of sameness, which refers to a certain permanence of identity over time, and to a selfhood, which is a more dynamic and changing side of the person as an actor in the social and cultural world.
/NESELF AS ANOTHER Based partly on the rich concept of the capable person, Changeux places neuroscientific discoveries within a broader philosophical context : man is at once neuronal, individual, and social ; a true and complete person in the sense that he is capable of consciousness, language, action, and symbolic activities. The advantage of this approach is in its ability to draw the neurosciences toward the understanding of the capable person. In using cerebral imaging methods, the domain of neurosciences ranges from discerning the molecular structures that act as building blocks of the body and the brain, to the study of superior cognitive capabilities. The fundamental challenge is to describe and understand human nature ; that which makes man human. Changeux invites us to engage in this critical reflection in his reflective work L’Homme de vérité [Changeux, 2002], translated in English as The Physiology of Truth [Changeux, 2004], in which he proposes a confrontation between the approaches adopted by life sciences and those of human sciences. His project of relat-
Towards a Neuroscience of the Capable Person : Unity, Diversity and Oneself as Another
15
ing neurosciences and philosophical reflection recognizes the important role played by anatomic and neuronal organization of the brain in achieving advanced cognitive activities. Progress in brain research, even though data are still limited given the breadth and complexity of the field, nevertheless permits us to see the problems of thought, consciousness, and relations between body and mind in new terms. By setting aside ideological polemics, we are able to treat delicate and difficult questions based on rigorous scientific reasoning, distinguishing the role played by a kind of nature-based culture from what can be expressed as a cultural appropriation of nature. As Changeux [Changeux, 2002] himself says, based on illuminating comments of Bachelard in Le Matérialisme rationnel [Bachelard, 1953], “Science does not have the philosophy it deserves.” By this he emphasizes the importance of material events as objects of legitimate scientific study – events or dimensions that idealist philosophers have not taken into account or have simply neglected in their reference to “materialism without matter” [Bachelard, 1953]. Evidence of materialism of knowledge-based substance requires that this materialism exist within a broader individual, social, and cultural context. Changeux’s concepts allow us to describe a category of materialism that is truly learned and not naïve.
#ULTURAL EPIGENETICS Changeux emphasizes the significance of the fact that in the course of mammalian evolution, the duration of the period of synaptogenesis increases from a few weeks in the rat to almost 15 years in humans. During this period an epigenetic appropriation of developing circuits by cultural processes, such as spoken/written language, symbolic systems, moral rules… takes place. As a consequence an important epigenetic variability develops between individual brains (even from genetically identical individuals). Yet, the mathematical formulation of the selective stabilization theory (introduced in the presentation by Gerald Edelman), states that “different learning inputs may produce different connective organizations and neuronal functional abilities, but the same behavioral abilities”. The epigenetic hypothesis allows Changeux to imagine the development of the brain as interplay between actions of genes and the characteristic evolution of learning and experience unique to each individual. The several billion neurons that are the essential components of the human brain form networks articulated in turn by a trillion synapses that are themselves the connections establishing fixed and stable links with a large number of other cells. Beyond this relatively stable architecture, each neuron is has uniquely defining characteristics that contribute to the brain’s infinite capacity for diversity and variability. The process of development of individuals is both embedded in the species and also specific : all individuals are different, even though they are embedded in genetic organizations relatively similar within each species. The brain’s great neuronal plasticity is a fundamental characteristic, which intervenes from the earliest stages of embryonic development, giving neurons and their synapses the capacity to change properties as a function of their type of activity. Coordinated neuronal organization occurs from the micro-molecular to the supra-macromolecular level through a certain conservation/stabilization of assemblages of neurons that guarantee the acquisition and maintenance of the structure of neural networks. Matter is hierarchically organized all the way up to superior cognitive functions [Changeux, 2002]. Neurosciences thus study rules of brain organization in terms of physi-
16
Complexity and Neurosciences in Dialogue : Towards a New Theory of the Brain ?
cochemical processes by breaking down the object of study into its parts (organs, areas, modules or functional groupings) and by perceiving these different parts in terms of their integration into higher organizational levels where they play differentiated roles in cognitive activities.
/UR ±STATE OF MIND² IS NOT PREORDAINED For [Changeux, 2002], the brain as a system can be described as both open and motivated : open because it continually exchanges energy and information with the surrounding world ; motivated because it responds to experiences of the world through self-organizing activities. Epigenetic development concerns what is added to genetics to contribute to the evolution of individuals, groups, and cultures. Genetic programming is an important factor but is unable to explain everything. Indeed, research biologists and social scientists agree on the hypothesis that genetic traits are the result of a complex covariation with evolving sociocultural factors, ultimately producing neuronal and behavioral individuals and social groupings. This concept opens a vast domain of research into the functioning of non-linear networks of genetic regulation through processes of neurogenesis and synapsogenesis, all in dynamic relation with contextualized experiences of individuals. An individual’s organization of neurons and their functional links, depends both on his genome and its evolution and on the interaction with the cultural context during his development. Today there is a resurgence of fundamental questioning about the origin of language and thought and about the respective place of genes and culture in the formation of the brain, memory, and cognitive skills. This renewed interest even concerns studies of the development of synaptic connections and the role played by the neuronal level in the construction and organization of knowledge. By refusing purely metaphysical explanations, it becomes possible to reject culture as a preordained state and rather to see it as the result of an emerging co-construction of the individual and the collective, which also mobilizes the neuronal system in its role in the exchange of representations and the communication among individuals, groups, and societies. In fact, it is now becoming a generally accepted concept that understanding neuronal function is a necessary but insufficient condition for understanding human complexity. If mental faculties, reflexive consciousness and the capacity to produce and exchange knowledge are studied scientifically, they are equally seen as part of a philosophical dialogue. Borrowing a modified version of Bachelard’s formulation, we can perhaps say that science may aspire to have the philosophy it deserves and, inversely, philosophy might count on science to listen to its concerns.
2EFERENCES Bachelard, G. (1953) Le Matérialisme rationnel, PUF, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (1983) L’Homme neuronal, Fayard, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (1986) Neuronal Man : the Biology of Mind, Oxford University Press, New York. Changeux, J.-P. (dir.) (1993) Fondements naturels de l’éthique, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (1994) Raison et plaisir, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (dir.) (1997) Une même éthique pour tous ?, Odile Jacob Paris.
Towards a Neuroscience of the Capable Person : Unity, Diversity and Oneself as Another
17
Changeux, J.-P. (2002) L’Homme de vérité, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (dir.) (2003) Gènes et Culture, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P. (2004) The Physiology of Truth : Neuroscience and Human Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Changeux, J.-P. (dir.) (2005) La Lumière au siècle des Lumières et aujourd’hui, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P., Connes, A. (1989) Matière à pensée, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P., Connes, A. (1995) Conversations on Mind, Matter and Mathematics, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Changeux, J.-P., Ricœur, P. (1998) Ce qui nous fait penser. La Nature et la Règle, Odile Jacob, Paris. Changeux, J.-P., Ricœur, P. (2000) What Makes Us Think ? A Neuroscientist and a Philosopher Argue about Ethics, Human Nature and the Brain, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ricœur, P. (1990) Soi-même comme un autre, Éditions du Seuil, Paris. Ricœur, P. (1992) Oneself as Another, The University of Chicago Press Chicago.
#HAPTER .EW $ISCOVERIES $E½NING #OMPLEXITY
3EARCHING FOR 3IMPLICITY IN #OMPLEXITY 'ROWTH )NNOVATION %CONOMIES OF 3CALE AND THE 0ACE OF ,IFE FROM #ELLS TO #ITIES Summary by Moira Cockell and Francis Walvogel of the presentation3 by Geoffrey West
Life is the most complex phenomenon in the Universe manifesting an extraordinary diversity of form and function over an enormous scale. Yet, as Geoffrey West shows us, many of its most fundamental and complex phenomena scale with size in a surprisingly simple fashion. He explains in simple terms, using examples from the study of animal and plant vascular systems, growth, cancer, aging, sleep and mortality, how these so-called “quarter power scaling laws” follow from fundamental universal principles leading to a general quantitative, predictive theory that captures the essential features of many diverse biological systems. West extend these ideas to discuss and speculate about equally complex phenomena, namely social organizations : asking to what extent are social organizations an extension of biology ? Is a city, for example, “just” a very large organism ? He argues that the analogous “social” scaling laws his work has uncovered point to general principles of organization common to all cities. However the analogues to metabolic rate and behavioral times in cities scale counter to their behavior in biological systems : in particular, the pace of life in cities increases with size. This has dramatic implications for growth and development : innovation and wealth creation can fuel social systems, but if left unchecked, can potentially sow the seeds for their inevitable collapse.3
#OMPLEXITY A TRULY INTERCULTURAL TOPIC The topic addressed in this presentation is truly intercultural : it spans from mathematics to physics, to basic questions in biology, and extends into social sciences by trying to understand growth and fate of living entities from simple organisms to cities. The presentation examines two major interdisciplinary themes : 3
A video of the presentation is available at HTTP WWWWKDIALOGUECH.
22
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
Firstly, can we conceptualize the sciences (either biological or social) in mathematical terms such as physics ? In other words, can we develop a set of “Newton’s laws of biology” from which we could in principal, derive in a quantitative manner, everything that can happen in those systems ? The simple answer is probably no, because the inherent complexities of the systems do not allow such quantification. Nevertheless, a slightly different version of this question can be answered more fruitfully as there are mathematical ways to describe certain global behaviors. These can be applied to such philosophical considerations as why it is that we age and die ; why humans have a mean natural life span somewhere between 50 to 100 years ; what determines the mean and the upper limit of the scale of human life, whereas mice have a natural life span of 2 to 3 years [Enquist, 1999 ; Brown, 2000 ; West, 2000 ; West, 2001]. Secondly, this presentation examines the degree to which social organizations can be considered as an extension of what we know (mathematically speaking), about biological systems [Anderson, 1988 ; Arthur, 1997 ; Bar-Yam, 1997, 2000, 2004 ; Belew and Mitchel 1996 ; Blum and Durlauf 2006 ; Cohen and Segel 2001 ; Cowan 1994 ; Kohler, 2000]. West points out that we frequently employ terms that have biological meaning, such as the concepts of the organism, metabolism, growth, evolution and so on, to describe diverse aspects of our social organizations such as cities, armies, corporations etc. He asks if these terms are merely used as loose metaphors, or alternatively reflect that mankind added some new dimension to his own complex system, the world we live in, when it became organized as a social structure ?”
±,IFE² IS COMPLEX BUT OBSERVES SOME SIMPLE RULES Some of life’s complexity is illustrated by the almost illegible global metabolic charts or by maps of the myriad neurological pathways that function in individual living organisms. Despite this, life also conforms to rules of extreme simplicity. Take for instance, the relationship between the measurement of overall metabolic activity (measured in watts) and mass of organisms. One might have naively predicted that an increase in mass by 10 would increase the metabolic rate by 10, and so on. In practice the relationship is logarithmic, with a slope of 3/4. This rule holds all the way from mouse to elephant. It is a mathematical expression of the fact that metabolism costs a lot more to a mouse than to an elephant and an illustration that life exhibits a remarkable economy of scale. The relationship of a 3/4 slope between metabolic rate and mass also holds in the taxonomic classes of smaller structural units of living things, down to cells in culture, mitochondria and bacteria – indeed it is maintained over a scale spanning at least 27 orders of magnitude. Small may be beautiful, but large is definitely more efficient. This interesting relationship goes far beyond metabolic rate, since any type of physiological constant follows the same relation. Diverse phenomena such as the rate of evolution, heart beat rate and many other functions that are only indirectly associated with metabolism, decrease with size following the same kinetics. These observations allow to derive some other interesting implications : thus for instance, the number of heart beats occurring in the natural life span of a mammal, multi-
Searching for Simplicity in Complexity
23
plied by its species-specific life span, is a biological constant. That is to say, the heart organs of a tiny shrew with an average life span of only a few months and a human being with an average human life span will beat for approximately the same number of times before expiring. A similar quarter-power scaling relationship also holds true for the ratio of white matter – grey matter in the composition of human brain tissue. Indeed, the number “4” plays such a recurring role in mathematical descriptions of life, that it merits consideration as being in some sense key to our understanding of life itself.
/RDER NEED NOT BE EASY OR INTUITIVE TO PERCEIVE Such mathematical relationships are so fundamental, that they extend to all living organisms. They reveal a type of order in the universe that is neither immediately perceivable nor intuitively expected, when for instance we observe the elements in a photographic image of a randomly selected human being surrounded by an apparently random selection of plants in a forest. Nevertheless, the universality of life’s scaling laws mean that one can also derive the average number of trees of a given size in a defined area of forest from a mathematical formula where the only known variable is the size of the tree trunks. What is the origin of this type of constancy ? The short answer is that it reflects generic properties of life networks. Such network properties are universal, well ordered hierarchically and have two defining characteristics : a) the networks are space filling ; b) their terminal units are the same size – i.e. their capillaries are the same at all scales. Despite the enormous variation among the forms of living organisms, each one complies with a set of constraints that network properties impose. Metabolic rate can be considered as an overall estimation of the “activities of life” of any living structure. It is a parameter that provides information about the burn rate of energy produced by that particular living organism. In terms of how that energy is used, a part goes into the maintenance of that organism, and part goes into its growth. A remarkable phenomenon is that if the observed growth curves for the full spectrum of living organisms are plotted, the curves show an impressive similarity. All are sigmoid, showing slow initial growth, then logarithmic development that finally levels off. Even more remarkably, when the same growth curves are appropriately rescaled, they become superimposable. The simplicity of the relationships that we derive from such mathematical analysis of biological living systems now permits us to ask questions in terms of these same fundamental scaling laws, such as what differentiates the growth of a cancer from either the growth of healthy tissue or from the growth of a fetus ? Many, if not all, living organisms organize themselves socially. Thus it is of great interest to ask if it is possible to extend the relationships described above to living organizations’ social organizations. In other words, do analogous power laws apply to the scaling of phenomena such as the growth of the infrastructure of cities ? The answer is yes. We can indeed clearly demonstrate that as cities grow, the rate of growth of numerous urban organizations ; road surfaces ; number of gas stations etc, increases in accordance with the same scaling laws that we derived for biological systems.
24
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
$IFFERENT SCALING LAWS FOR ±BIOLOGICAL² AND ±SOCIAL² PHENOMENA A mathematical description of the growth of complex societal phenomena can also be derived. However, while these growth curves are similar in shape to the growth curves for biological systems, there is one remarkable and important difference in the equation that describes their growth. A parameter called β (the growth constant), is always less than 1 in the mathematical description of rates of biological phenomena, and infrastructure growth. In contrast, it is found to be consistently greater than 1 in equations that describe the growth of human sociological phenomena involving creative and innovative inputs such as registration of patents, developments of creative employments etc. Thus two clearly distinct categories of scaling law exist. In simple terms, this difference means the following : when the growth constant β is less than 1, the growth within a system remains sublinear, the economy of scale rule is respected, and the system remains within the boundaries of sustainable efficiency. Natural living systems function in this way over an immense range of size / mass and the curve of such a data graph remains infinitely sigmoidal. On the other hand, when the growth constant β lies above 1, growth becomes supralinear, rapid growth continues without asymptote, unchecked, and in a limited amount of time the curve goes into infinity – in other terms into a crisis : Put in everyday words, one can apply the maxim “the bigger you are, the more you get, the more you want” to describe the trend. The trend is characteristic of the growth curve of patents, creative employments, clinical use of new antifungal drugs, wealth production, and so on – indeed of all socially important urban organizations !
! MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT OF ±SUSTAINABILITY² These mathematical expressions demonstrate that reaching of a critical situation where rapid or brutal readjustments become a necessity for continuation is an inherent property of the unchecked growth of urbanized societies. Such growth is ultimately unsustainable. Even when crises of growth can be solved by the advent of new innovations (such as has happened in our society with the introduction of informatics), the mathematical model also predicts that the periods of time periods between “crises” must get shorter and shorter. An accelerating treadmill of novel innovations becomes imperative to survival of the system. The implications of the “greater or less than 1” status of the mathematical constant beta can also be expressed in other, more explicit words, “Pace of life” effectively decreases with size if the growth constant β is inferior to 1, as documented by most studies on efficiency-based, biological systems. In contrast, if β is greater than 1, the pace of life increases with the size of the system under observation. This phenomenon has been documented for many characteristics of the urban systems. For instance, it is has been observed that diverse parameters ranging from the speed of walking to crime rates, increase disproportionately with the increase in size of cities. In conclusion, mathematical models based on some simple relationships of living structures can help us to conceptualize the improvement in efficiency of the biological systems as their size increases. Furthermore they bring to our attention how, if used in an unchecked way, the emerging characteristics of mankind such as creative ingenuity, can
Searching for Simplicity in Complexity
25
drive the growth curves of the parameters with which we measure economic and societal success, into reiterative crises that must occur at ever shorter time intervals.
2EFERENCES Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. J., Pines, D. (Eds) (1988) “The Economy as an Evolving Complex System”, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 5, Addison-Wesley. Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. N., Lane, D. A. (Eds) (1997) “The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II”, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 27, Addison-Wesley. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997) Dynamics of Complex Systems, Perseus Books. Bar-Yam, Y. (Ed.) (2000) Unifying Themes in Complex Systems : Proceedings of the First International Conference on Complex Systems, Perseus Books, New Hampshire. Bar-Yam, Y., Minai, A. A. (Eds) (2004) Unifying Themes in Complex Systems II : Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Complex Systems, Perseus Books, New Hampshire. Belew, R. K., Mitchell, M. (Eds) (1996) : “Adaptive individuals in evolving populations : models and algorithms”, Santa Fe Institute Studies in The Sciences of Complexity, vol. 26, Addison-Wesley. Blume, L. E., Durlauf, S. N. (Eds) (2006) The Economy as an Evolving Complex System III : Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Oxford University Press. Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Enquist, B. J. (2000) Scaling in Biology : Patterns and Processes, Causes and Consequences, Oxford University Press. Cohen, I., Segel L. A., (Eds) (2001) Design Principles for the Immune System and Other Distributed Autonomous Systems, Oxford University Press. Enquist, B. J., West, G. B., Charnov, E. L., Brown, J. H. (1999) “Allometric scaling of production and lifehistory variation in vascular plants”, Nature 401, 907-911. West, G. B., Brown, J. H., Enquist, B. J. (2000) The Origin of Universal Scaling Laws in Biology, Oxford University Press. West, G. B., Brown, J. H., Enquist, B. J. (2001). A general model for ontogenetic growth, Nature 413, 628-31. Cowan, G. A., Pines, D., Meltzer D. (Eds) (1994) Complexity : Metaphors, Models, and Reality : Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Proceedings, Perseus Books. Kohler T. A., Gumerman, G. J. (Eds) (2000) Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies : Agent-Based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes, Oxford University Press.
5NDERSTANDING AND -ANAGING 0LANETARY #OMPLEXITY Summary by Moira Cockell, Francis Walvogel and S. Kadner of the presentation4 by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Schellnhuber’s presentation elaborates how the Earth System has evolved over billions of years through strong interactions between the geosphere and the biosphere. He discusses the evidence that global industrialization has recently pushed this process into a new stage where humankind is dominating the planetary biogeochemical cycles and argues that the most severe – yet unintentional – consequence is anthropogenic climate change that will profoundly affect nature and civilization on Earth. His lecture attempts to be both general, by addressing the big co-evolutionary picture, and specific, by providing examples of pertinent scientific challenges. In Schellnhuber’s view, “Coping with climate crisis is possible, if we dramatically improve our understanding of the systems involved and generate novel strategies for managing environmental complexity at all relevant scales. Solving the climate problem may actually bring about a transition to global sustainability where humankind is widely controlling its own subsistence conditions.” However, he is convinced that the objectives and risks of auto-evolution cannot be addressed within a purely scientific framework, and cites the inadequate current debate on geoengineering schemes (like deliberate sulphur contamination of the stratosphere) for greenhouse effect containment, as evidence for the urgent need for wider engagement. “The true limits of “improving” both the design and the crew of spaceship Earth, can only be assessed through a fundamental, unprecedented trialogue between philosophy, ethics and science,” says Schellnhuber. 4
4
A video of the presentation is available at HTTP WWWWKDIALOGUECH.
Understanding and Managing Planetary Complexity
27
7HY US The fundamental question of why life can exist on Earth, and how it came to emerge on this planet alone among those we know of (more than 200 exoplanets without the slightest trace of life have been discovered by now), is crucial to our understanding of the presentday complexity of our planetary environment. This environment sustains humans, animals, plants, viruses, bacteria and fungi. Somehow, the oxygen-photosynthesis cycle, which arose through the most primitive life forms more than 3 billion years ago, was the essential driving force for more complex organisms to emerge from the simple archaic cells with the capacity to reproduce. Three ingredients – water, CO2 and sunlight – were essential for the necessary chemical reactions to take place. These same physical conditions also allowed the progressive development of what we now call the “greenhouse” effect. The greenhouse effect’s protective functions were themselves an important element in creating the conditions in which life could develop further. The natural greenhouse gases provide an additional 33 degrees of warmth to the planet’s surface, ensuring that water is present in liquid form. Without it, the mean temperature of our planet would have decreased to far less than 0°C.
±(ABITABLE ZONES² The global carbon cycle is, in fact, a self-stabilizing feedback loop that is ultimately responsible for the stable geobiological system. Besides its important atmospheric processes, the stability of the CO2 cycle is largely dependent on the Earth’s plate tectonics. This is because over the long term (with a turnover time of around 500,000 years) the Earth’s carbon gets precipitated from the atmosphere and buried in sediments that can be re-ejected into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. It is hypothesized that our neighbor planet Mars is not habitable (any more) because its own plate tectonics movements came to a standstill at some point in the distant past. Atmospheric conditions play a vital role for the development of biological systems, but the distances of the planetary orbits from their energy source, the Sun, are also decisive. By taking into account parameters such as temperature and CO2 content, it is possible to estimate the theoretical habitable zone of our solar system and to follow the changes in it over time. Such an assessment shows that one billion years ago, the habitable zone contained Mars and Earth’s position. Today, due to the continuing increase in the Sun’s luminosity, only the Earth belongs to that zone. Extrapolation of such data reveals that in another 500 million years, the Earth is likely to have crossed the threshold and, having run out of atmospheric CO2, will lie outside of the habitable zone. However, it should be noted that the weathering processes, which are responsible for this long-term removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, occur on a time-scale of millions of years, while the anthropogenic tampering with the CO2 systems happens on a scale of hundreds of years.
'AIA THEORY The premise that both biological and geological systems of planet Earth are closely linked, and are the driving forces of the present dynamic equilibrium that sustains life, is the basis
28
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
of the Gaia theory, largely conceived and developed by James Lovelock. In essence, the theory takes account of the fact that life and its environment are in a state of constant coevolution. It is the complexity of this co-evolution that is the object of research of many scholars in astrophysics, climate science and anthropology. Originally born by the Gaia theory, the advent of methods to make quantitative assessments of how such planetary changes interact with each other, has given rise to the field we now call “Earth System Analysis”. In spite of being a highly theoretical science, there is nevertheless good evidence to substantiate our faith in the predictive value of Earth System models. For instance, such purely mathematical models are able to recapitulate the explosion of multicellular, complex life forms that occurred on this planet some 540 million years ago. In both quantitative and qualitative senses, we are able to draw a much more detailed picture of how human life and its environment have co-evolved over the last million years : Quaternary climate changes probably drove the early evolution of hominid species, while the emergence of capacities for communication and organization in their descendents may have caused the extinctions of species that were rivals in the competition to exploit resources. Relatively recent environmental and climate changes that have had crucial consequences for human populations in terms of food production, access to freshwater, displacement of communities, economy, technology and community governance, provide strikingly close-to-home illustrations of how biological and geological systems co-evolve. For example, a climate-ocean-biosphere model that uses only orbital parameters without any other data, predicts that about 6000 years ago, a regional climate phase transition triggered the browning of the Sahara. Cave painting records document the fact that the great desert had previously accommodated farming communities. Consistent with the time of the simulated climate change, there is abundant evidence that a population movement away from the Sahara and towards the big river valleys occurred, bringing with it the sociopolitical and economical consequences of the so-called “hydraulic cultures” (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Western India). Robust Earth System models also enable us to make predictions about where present trends in the dynamics of human and environmental co-evolution are leading. They suggest that across the planet there are now many discrete geographical regions and largescale ecosystems at risk of undergoing phase transitions that will, in turn, cause knock-on effects on their neighboring geographical regions, and may even set off a series of irremediable chain reactions.
4IPPING POINTS At least a dozen of so-called tipping points are at (more or less imminent) risk of undergoing environmental change at a level that will have rapid and irreversible consequences for the life that they contribute to sustain. Among them are the Greenland ice sheet, the thermohaline circulation system of our oceans, the Amazonian rainforest, the Indian monsoon and the El Niño Southern Oscillation system. The Earth System model “CLIMBER” is just one simplified way to illustrate the interconnected dynamic effects that such predicted climate changes could have. It provides a means to show graphically how global warming due to human activities can destabilize the carbon cycle. Correlative evidence that recent global climate change is a consequence
Understanding and Managing Planetary Complexity
29
of human activity and not simply part of a regular pattern has accumulated to such a level that it is now widely accepted. We can for instance monitor the past dynamics of CO2 levels, which act as a surrogate indicator of the planet’s temperature over a long period of time. By analyzing ice cores of up to 2-km length in Antarctica, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the past 700,000 years can be reconstructed, showing that for most of that period a stable pattern of regular fluctuations prevailed. We also know now that during the last 10,000 years, a time span that is consistent with the onset of large civilizations in the human cultural record, the temperature of the planet became essentially constant. CO2 levels first began to rise dramatically above the previously recorded maxima approximately one hundred years ago, a time that correlates with the dynamics of the Industrial Revolution. The planetary level of CO2 now exceeds its previous standard range by 40%. Moreover, if the current trends of human activity continue to reinforce this phase transition, we can expect the planet to undergo a further 3-5 degree increase in temperature by 2100 as a result. A central chart, the “Tipping Points Map of the Earth System” can be employed to envisage the consequences. As a metaphor, these tipping points can be considered as the “vital organs” of our “body Earth”. We can use the model to examine what happens if we activate the tipping points one by one : it is well known that the thermohaline circulation (or ocean conveyor belt) plays an important role in maintaining climate stability as, for instance, demonstrated by one of its components, the Gulf Stream. The melting of the polar ice sheets, by changing water density and temperature, would be expected not only to have a catastrophic effect on this oceanic conveyor belt, but would also lead to massive leaking of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from the continental shelves. There would be many other possible consequences – one can almost speak of chain reactions – on these interconnected tipping points : changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation system would affect the Indian monsoon, which itself would modify the snow cover in Tibet and the Himalaya, which would affect in turn the biostability and the dust reserves in the Sahara. The African dust storms are capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean and fertilize the Amazonian forest. A similar theoretical scenario can be imagined if we consider the effects of instability of the Antarctic ice sheet. It would have an impact on the circumpolar deepwater formation, which in turn would affect the climate conditions and the marine life in the Atlantic. In brief, most, if not all, abrupt transitions at the tipping points are likely to exert amplifying effects on each other’s behavior.
4OTAL %ARTH 3YSTEM MODELS INTEGRATING THE ±HUMAN DIMENSION² OF SEMI RATIONAL DECISION MAKING It is abundantly clear today that unless we find ways to reverse the current trends, anthropogenic greenhouse emissions will bring some of the systems described previously into motion and might even trigger something like a runaway greenhouse effect. Whatever the particular tipping point that initiates the potential knock-on effects, in the future our planet is likely to witness changes of almost inconceivable magnitude. If the human race is to continue to co-evolve with its environment in face of the global changes that our activities have provoked, we need to respond rapidly with a global alteration of our habits. Instead,
30
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
we are presently facing global autism. Without developing a radically novel approach that puts together all the combined interdisciplinary forces of humankind’s intelligence and reasoning capacity we will have no chance to avoid the climate chaos likely to start within this century. Many models indicate that it will then become impossible for the planet to escape from a new, self-sustaining cycle of ever-escalating temperature increase. The conditions are clearly defined : if we continue to do business as usual, the emission of greenhouse gases will continue to increase dramatically, whereas – in order to be sure that we do not risk to set in motion the tipping points scenario – we must find a way to substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the next decades. This implies fundamental changes to the very foundations of our civilization. It will, at the very least, require a reinvention of the concepts of urbanity and rurality as well as a self-conscious process of human autoevolution designed to transcend the environmental problems we have created.5
2EFERENCES Bunde, A., Kropp, J., and Schellnhuber H. J. (Eds) (2002) The Science of Disasters. Climate Disruptions, Heart Attacks, and Market Crashes, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York. Grassl, H., Schellnhuber, H. J. et al. (2003) Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century : Kyoto and beyond, WBGU, Berlin. Grassl, H., Schellnhuber H. J. et al. (2005) : World in Transition : Fighting Poverty through Environmental Policy, Earthscan, London. Lenton, T. M., Schellnhuber, H. J., Szathmáry, E. (2004) “Climbing the co-evolution ladder”, Nature 431, 913. Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786-93. Lovelock, J. E. and Margulis, L. (1974) “Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere : the gaia hypothesis”, Tellus : A Bimonthly Journal of Geophysics, 26(1), 2-10. Rahmstorf, S. Schellnhuber, H. J., (2006) Der Klimawandel. Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. Verlag C. H. Beck, München, Germany. Schellnhuber, H. J., & Wenzel, V. (Eds) (1998) Earth System Analysis. Integrating Science for Sustainability, Springer, Berlin. Schellnhuber, H. J. (1999) “Earth system analysis and the second Copernican revolution”, Nature 402 Supp. C19-23. Schellnhuber, H. J., et al. (Eds) (2006) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Schubert, R., Schellnhuber, H. J., Buchmann, N., Epiney, A., Griesshammer, R., Kulessa, M., Messner, D., Rahmstorf, S., Schmid, J. (2006) The Future Oceans – Warming Up, Rising High, Turning Sour. WBGU, Berlin. Schwartzman, D. (2002) Life, Temperature, and the Earth : The Self-Organizing Biosphere, Columbia University Press. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P. D., Jaeger, J., Matson, P., Moore III, B., Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner, B.L., and Wasson, R.J. (Eds) (2004) Global Change and the Earth System : A Planet Under Pressure. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
5
Recommended further reading [Bunde, 2002 ; Grassl, 2003 ; Grassl, 2005 ; Lenton, 2004 ; Lenton, 2008 ; Lovelock and Margulis, 1974 ; Rhamstorf and Schellnhuber, 2006 ; Schellnhuber and Wenzel, 1998 ; Schellnhuber, 1999 ; Schellnhuber, 2006 ; Schubert, 2006 ; Schwartzman, 1999 ; Steffen, 2004].
7HY 0HYSICS IS %ASY AND !UTISM IS (ARD by Ian Hacking6
The organizing theme of this symposium session is complexity. Hence the very titles of the two previous presentations : Geoffrey West : Searching for Simplicity in Complexity ; Growth, Innovation, Economies of Scale, and the Pace of Life from Cells to Cities. John Schellnhuber : Understanding and Managing Planetary Complexity. Regardless of how well informed we are about their topics, these two talks captured our attention because they try to understand issues that affect every one of us. Their research is daunting, because what they work on is relentlessly complex. They are experts who think hard about complex systems. The organizers of this weekend asked a philosopher to pitch in to help think about what they do : To say what complexity is, and how we make sense of it.6 I shall proceed in four stages : 1. Explain my paradoxical title ; 2. Observe that complexity is in the eye of the beholder ; 3. Mention some fundamental knacks by which different sciences make sense of complex systems ; 4. Apply these considerations to the work of Drs. West and Schellnhuber.
0HYSICS IS SIMPLE Philosophers notoriously talk in general terms, but I try to anchor thinking to down-toearth examples. My title comes from an incident. I first met John Schellnhuber in August 2006 in Boulder, Colorado. He had come for a meeting with other global leaders in climate change research at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Later in the day I met with a physicist at the University of Colorado. Eric Cornell is a notably successful 6
A video of the presentation is available at HTTP WWWWKDIALOGUECH.
32
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
Fig. 1 Photograph taken by Eran Tal (Philosophy PhD candidate) of Physics PhD candidate Rockson Chang in Aephraim Steinberg’s lab, Quantum Optics Group, University of Toronto, August, 2008.
experimenter – he did the research for which he got a Nobel Prize when he was about 30, in 1995. In the course of our conversation he said, “Physics is easy because we only do simple problems”. That is a paradox. Physics covers a host of activities, so let us be specific. Cornell works on ultracold physics. “Ultracold” ? Almost absolute zero. A thousandth of a millionth of a degree Celsius above zero. In 1925 Einstein foresaw that strange things happen to atoms that cold. Only in 1995 did two labs, one in Colorado and then one at MIT, succeed in making a new state of matter in the ultracold, what is called Bose-Einstein Condensate. Cold physics is a “hot” topic. Why ? The new state of matter has innumerable bizarre properties – as if there were steam, water, ice, and then something absolutely new in the history of the universe. Labs all over the world are using it to find out about light, about atoms, and even about the void. Cold atoms are so unenergetic that you can study them in the raw.7 They may teach us even about the neutron stars. We cannot experiment on stars ! But we have reason to think that they are stable objects because of strange quantum properties of their ingredients, and we are beginning to be able to investigate those ingredients in the ultracold laboratory.8 7
8
We can actually see, what you would have thought Heisenberg taught us was impossible, the macroscopic wave function of those cold atoms that are bosons – because condensate consists of atoms in the same ground state, their average wave function is just the wave function of each individual atom. Hot stars are stable because the energy of nuclear fission balances the gravitational force that would make them implode. Neutron stars are cold, but they are made of fermions, no two of which can be in the same state thanks to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, so by Heisenbergs’ law when they begin to implode their momentum must increase, thus counteracting gravity. Pairs of fermions are bosons, and hence can be studied in the ultracold lab.
Why Physics is Easy and Autism is Hard
33
The paradox is clear. This can’t be simple ! It took 70 years to pull off Cornell’s trick. It does not need massive investment and armies of scientists, as does high energy physics at CERN. All the work is done on the top of a table by a small handful of people, seldom much more than six in a research group. But as you can imagine, the published papers of this research look complex. So does the tabletop used in this kind of work9 : That looks bafflingly complicated, even if it is human-sized. So what is simple ? I am going to emphasize the laboratories rather than theories because people tend to think that in the end science comes down to theorizing. I want to bring to this World Knowledge Dialogue a variety of dialogues, including those between theory and experiment ; and, in one talk, to speak about cutting edge physics and a current crisis in developmental neurobiology.
!UTISM IS HARD Autism may be defined by specialists as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in reciprocal social interaction, communication deficits, and repetitive, restricted patterns of behavior and interests. To put it in more personal terms, autism is devastating not only to a child’s development but also to a family. A child with severe autism is somehow not there. Nobody nowhere, as the title of one autobiography has it [Williams, 1990, 1994]. Very often physically healthy (though there is a high incidence of other problems) he – and it is usually boys – just does not respond. It is not merely that he does not learn to speak until years after his peers, and then inadequately. He is a child with no affect, who never snuggles. He is obsessed with things and order, but does not play with toys in any recognizable way, and certainly does not play with other children. He mercilessly echoes a few things you say, or a phrase from a television advertisement. He has violent tantrums, not the usual sort of thing expected by parents who live in a community rich in children, but screaming, hitting, biting, smashing. Alternating with a placid gentleness, maybe even a smile – but not really for you, mother. Your child seems unreachable, loveable and gentle but unbearably other. And autism is for life. Autism is not always anything like as serious as my vignette suggests. We now have a whole range of what are called “Autistic Spectrum Disorders”. About two in every 300 young children are now being diagnosed as autistic. We are finding out a lot about the human brain, but despite various sorts of hype one encounters in the media, we know absolutely nothing about what causes autism, and not much about how to help the autistic compensate for their disability. It is a good subject to put beside ultracold physics, because in terms of research, they are roughly the same age. Of course there have been autistic people forever, and the disorder was identified 65 years ago, but it became a hot topic for research only around 1995, the year in which we first saw Bose-Einstein Condensate. Twelve years later there are many more autism researchers around the world, in various disciplines, than there are ultracold
9
Photograph taken by Eran Tal (Philosophy PhD candidate) of Physics PhD candidate Rockson Chang in Aephraim Steinberg’s lab, Quantum Optics Group, University of Toronto, August, 2006.
34
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
physicists. The word “autism” passed from obscure to common parlance ; it has become sufficiently familiar for us all to know what John Schellnhuber meant when he used it in his presentation (Sect. 2.2), to say that people and governments who could not face the current realities of climate are autistic, that is to say, locked in upon their own inner world. Autism researchers do genetics, brain scans, autopsies, and innumerable psychological tests – anything from any available toolbox. Little hints keep cropping up.10 Unfortunately, to put matters in very cruel way, thus far, research has found out almost nothing, except what was known from the day autism became a diagnosis – that many more autistic children are boys than are girls, in a ratio of 4 to 1. So why is ultracold physics so “easy” and autism so hard ?
#OMPLEXITY IS LESS IN THINGS THAN IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER One man’s “simple” is another man’s “complex”. Pluck a leaf from a tree. Nothing could be simpler. With the exception of the Inuit cultures of treeless parts of the northern hemisphere, the vocabulary of every society on the planet has a simple short word that means leaf. Now let your leaf fall : it flutters to the floor. Try to describe that motion exactly – it is not at all like Galileo’s shot dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa. The fall of each and every leaf from a tree is a complex story in its own right. A physicist will not in practice be able to tell you anything much about the fall of your leaf. For a plant physiologist, that very leaf that you picked constitutes an entire and extraordinarily complex system. Dictionary definitions make the point that it depends on how you look at something, whether it is complex or not. Here are three definitions I have found. Something is complex when it is not easily analyzed ; when it is hard to understand fully ; when it necessitates earnest study or examination in order to understand or cope with it. It is people who find things hard to understand, who study earnestly ; it is people who find things easy or hard to analyze. Complexity is a relation between people and things. Part of Geoffrey West’s title, “Searching for simplicity in complexity,” suggests that there is complexity out there, and we look for a hidden simplicity that is also out there. For a moment I encourage a reverse point of view. The simplicity or complexity is in the eye of we who are trying to understand what is out there. It is true that one important technical definition puts complexity in a thing, or rather in a sequence of numbers. An entire branch of mathematics, called complexity theory, developed around 1960. The degree of complexity of a sequence is defined as the length of the shortest computer program needed to generate the sequence. A sequence is absolutely random when the shortest program is as long as the sequence itself. To connect this with the real world, take the sequence of temperatures at noon in Geneva, every day since records began, and on into the future. The sequence is random if the best program to generate the sequence is, in effect, the list of numbers themselves. Such a sequence is “objectively” complex, but it is not that kind of complexity that makes autism hard, or lack of it that makes ultracold physics easy. 10
I do not mean to diminish findings such as this one, with 120 authors from 19 countries : [Szatmari, et al., 2007] But the history of identifying autism genes demands caution. I do not, however, support the scepticism of Jay Joseph [Joseph, 2006].
Why Physics is Easy and Autism is Hard
35
4HREE KNACKS AND HOW WE GOT THEM I shall mention three familiar fundamental tools by which human beings have been able to come to understand, and to some extent predict and control, the material world around us. I call them knacks to make plain that I am only pointing. A knack is a specific talent for something, especially one difficult to explain or teach. It also suggests an element of quickness of hand or eye or mind. I want just those connotations. Too often we turn important ideas into idols that become untouchable. Take “Quantum Mechanics”. That is a general name for one of the most profound body of ideas and practices yet engineered by the human mind. It is the successor of Newtonian Mechanics, and seems a long way from more humdrum automobile mechanics. If you are inclined to idolize quantum mechanics, as I am, it is good to learn from a classical scholar [Hadot, 2006], who observes that the Greek word “mechanics” first meant trickery – the trickery with which one could interfere with and make use of nature. Quantum mechanics is quantum trickery. The optical table that I showed in my photograph is a wonderful example of quantum trickery writ small and material. It is helpful to use a historical template to produce a scheme in which to represent scientific activity. The sciences employ many very distinct types of reasoning, each of which depends both on some human cognitive capacities and on the world within which we have evolved. The growth of scientific knowledge is first of all not finding things out, but discovering how to find out, discovering capacities within ourselves as human beings, capacities thanks to which we are able to find out. Each such discovery relies on new social practices, new institutions, new ways of communicating, and new ways of talking. Each such discovery is a long slow accumulation of wisdom and trickery.
0ROOF MODELS AND THE LABORATORY Curious people have been looking, exploring, trying things our forever, but our first big step on the road to present science was discovering our capacity to prove unexpected conclusions from rather simple premises. “A new light flashed upon the mind of the first man (be he Thales or some other) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle” – thus Kant.11 After that, said Kant, “the royal road” to knowledge. Although I defer to Kant, and am happy to invoke a legendary Thales, it was only very recently that a historian of classical mathematics turned away, from a chronology of theorems proved, to a “cognitive history”, that is, a history of the discovery and exploitation of some peculiar human cognitive capacities [Netz, 1999]. That is the first knack of the sciences, demonstrative proof. We often say that the sciences as we know them began in the 17th century, during the so-called scientific revolution. I am happy with that abstraction, and will abstract again. A whole new style of thinking arose, what Husserl referred to as the Galilean style. That is, using mathematical structures to make hypothetical models of some incomprehensible phenomena, and controlling the models by observations and measurements that can be made against nature. That is the second knack through which the sciences approach nature. 11
Critique of Pure Reason B xi.
36
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
The amazing thing about hypothetical modeling by mathematical structures is that it works. The cosmologist Steven Weinberg observed that there is not the slightest reason why structures devised by the human mind should be so rich in understanding complex systems in nature. They do, and are the only show in town, according to the grammarian Noam Chomsky, who alluded to Weinberg and then back to Husserl : “We have no present alternative to pursuing the ‘Galilean’ style in the natural sciences at least” [Chomsky, 1980 : 9]. (It is no accident that the cosmologist and the grammarian said that the Galilean style is all we have : because you cannot do much in the way of experiments in either cosmology or grammar. Today’s string theory is the perfect exemplification of what we might call the pure Galilean style, untouched by experiment and unable at present to reach out to it. Galileo was the first man to make serious use of the telescope to extend our powers of sight. But if you cannot see or measure what exists in nature, how do you control hypothetical models ? The third fundamental new discovery of how to find out was what I call the laboratory style of thinking, which is not a matter of observing and measuring what already exists, but of making and doing. For an early example, take Robert Boyle and his air pump for creating a void, a vacuum in a container. That was something new ; it could be probed, investigated, on top of a table. There are two essential elements : the making of apparatus, and the creation of new phenomena, which simply do not exist in the universe, before they are produced by human apparatus. Where I say create phenomena, you may prefer to say purify, or, with excessive modesty, make in a manageable and measurable form in a laboratory. That is the third knack, the creation of artificial phenomena using apparatus made to work in a laboratory. We are able to create phenomena about which we can make new hypothetical models that suggest new things to create in the laboratory that provoke changes or additions to hypotheses – an incredibly fertile dialectic. One reason to single out Boyle is that there is now a classic historical work that shows how radical Boyle was [Schaffer and Shapin, 1986]. Another – which one learns from that book – is that a great man of the preceding generation, Thomas Hobbes, saw clearly that Boyle was firming up a new style of thinking, and hated it. There are quite enough public phenomena in the world already, Hobbes says huffily, in a tract directed at Boyle. We do not need more, that are produced in a closet, and checked only by the members of a secret society (the Royal Society of London). God has given us enough quite enough phenomena to work with, Mr Boyle, and we do not need you to give us more dubious ones.12 Hobbes was radically wrong ! I value him because he saw a dangerous new thing being made before him, and no one else at the time, perhaps not even Boyle himself, understood that. The power of the laboratory to create new phenomena in the light of hypothetical models, and in turn to modify the models, was once a controversial discovery. There are more styles of scientific thinking in our tradition, and more emblems of their discovery. Think of Pascal and probability ; that is another knack that I shall briefly mention in connection with Geoffrey West’s material. Think of Linnaeus for his radical transformation of the classification of and relations among living things. But the knacks that legend attributes to Thales, Galileo and Boyle suffice here, for I was asking a specific question, half of which is, why is physics simple ?
12
For Hobbes’ own words in his Dialogus Physicus (1661), see [Schaffer and Shapin, 1986 : 351].
Why Physics is Easy and Autism is Hard
37
Answer : because at any moment we approach a problem with these three distinct styles of reasoning, at each stage doing what is simple in the light of what has gone before. We remake the world in the light of our models ; we revise our models in the light of our remaking. Every individual step is simple relative to what we know how to do. Look back at that photograph of a table. It is, first of all, a very precise table, into which one screws various lenses and mirrors and lasers, all old technology. I have not shown the traps for atoms, which are nearby, and rely on well understood electricity and magnetism. I have not shown the cameras for photographing clouds of atoms, which are precise forms of the digital cameras used by grandparents for taking snaps of their children. I have not shown the small computers on a nearby table, or the coffee cups, pencils and whiteboard. Getting all of this to work in an intelligible way requires a vast array of skills. Physics is not easy in the sense of easy to do. But because we relentlessly make the phenomena in the light of theory, and relentlessly modify theory in the light of new phenomena, this hand-in-hand partnership makes sense of Cornell’s remark, “Physics is easy because we only do simple problems”. Why is autism not easy in this curious sense ? Part of the answer is that the third knack is simply not applicable, because we cannot put children’s brains into the laboratory. More importantly, we do not yet have deep models of the human brain : I say this with no intent to slight the models developed by my colleague Jean-Pierre Changeux, presenting elsewhere in this conference. What is amazing is what we can find out about the brain using our meager repertoire, as illustrated by the achievements of Gerald Edelman. But we lack the intimate dialogue of theory and laboratory that makes physics “easy”. I now turn to the complexities studied by John Schellnhuber and Geoffrey West.
-ONSOONS AND OTHER REAL WORLD COMPLEXITIES To what extent is the human race – that’s us – warming up its planet ? We, our planet, and its climate, constitute an organic system that is very hard to for us understand, to predict, or to control. That is why we call it complex. Again let us be specific and consider one of John Schellnhuber’s fields of research : he asks, under what conditions could the Indian Summer Monsoon collapse ? Although the monsoon causes widespread damage in Bangladesh even now, if it failed for several consecutive years, millions of people would likely starve to death. One cannot literally experiment on the climate : it is empty to say that the whole world is a laboratory. What Dr Schellnhuber and his colleagues do, is to make fairly detailed theoretical models of the Summer Monsoon, and use computer simulation to see what will happen. I say detailed, but the assumptions will be staggering in their absurdity. Start with simple assumptions about the distribution of temperatures in a rectangular block of air over the Indian sub-continent, 3 kilometers high, and suppose all highly relevant parameters are contained in it. What is the control on such models ? You cannot make experiments. Why should we believe any of its predictions ? The answer is a new concept, the robustness of models. Other workers make other simplifying assumptions. Models are credible when any plausible model gives about the same predictions as other plausible models. Models are credible only when they have been challenged by other models. It is not that we claim any one
38
New Discoveries Defining Complexity
model is right, but collectively that they are robust. But we never get down to the kind of “simplicity” illustrated by ultracold physics. Dr. Schellnhuber’s work on the Monsoon is in a time frame of short duration, a couple or three centuries at most. Geoffrey West has done a lot of thinking about complex systems in the very long term. Using some of the strategies he learned as a physicist, he tries to understand some very general constraints on how human-sized, life-forms can evolve, do evolve, have evolved, or might evolve. Human-sized ? Mites to Whales, Lichen to Redwoods, but not bacterial sized, where most evolution on the face of the Earth has occurred. Dr West has crafted an astonishingly powerful account of the constraints on the sizes, life-spans, appetites, metabolism, breath-rate (etc.) of sexed organisms. It is astonishing because they all fit, from Mites to Whales, into a set of what we see as a simple input-output energy equation. It fits the data so well that we could call this West’s Law. His presentation to this meeting moved from long-term evolution into a relatively short time-span. The life of cities : complex organizations of myriad smaller organizations, embedded in yet larger complexes. The interactions boggle the mind. This is of immense practical importance today, when the city, rather than the region, or the nation state, is once again becoming the dominant life form for humans. The great cities of the world, such as Mumbai, Saõ Paolo or Dakar, did not exist a century ago. West posed a question similar to the one at the core of Schellnhuber’s research on the Monsoon. Under what conditions could the Indian Summer Monsoon collapse ? Under what conditions might a modern megacity grow so vast that its social organization collapsed into horrendous chaos ? Just as the dinosaur got too big for its boots, according to West’s equation, so the megacity might approach critical size and collapse. Why should we believe the equation ? It is rather like an empirical, inductive, generalization that fits data astonishingly well, and for which West has sketched an underlying rationale. But could it not be just an accidental uniformity ? An unkind comparison would be with what is called Bode’s Law, an eighteenth-century generalization about the distances of the planets from the sun, and the axes on which they rotate. It did lead to the prediction of a planet between Mars and Jupiter, in what has since been found to be the asteroid belt, of which the biggest object is Ceres. Neptune does not fit well with the Law, but Pluto was found near where Neptune was expected. Two things make the law attractive. First, it is a very simple linear equation ; second, the probability of the planets being distributed at random and yet fitting the Law is very small. Here another knack, another style of reasoning barely mentioned earlier, is used : probability. We may still ask why the Law holds so well. There are a few physical models (knack 2) that predict it – they involve planetary resonance and degrees of freedom, and imply that any stable system of planets must satisfy the Law. Most astrophysicists, however, think that Bode’s Law is not a law but just a coincidence. West’s law fits the data ; use the right logarithmic scale and you get a simple looking line. Now use the knack of probability thinking : It is initially that method of reasoning that makes West’s Law so credible, although he also has theoretical reflections to motivate his Law. He has vastly better probabilities for his Law than had Bode, but we still need more in the way of hypothetical modeling in order to feel that we have an understanding of the phenomena. Such is the ongoing nature of the growth of knowledge.
Searching for Simplicity in Complexity
39
2EFERENCES Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York. Hadot, P. (2006) The Veil of Isis : An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature, Harvard University Press, Harvard. Joseph, J. (2006) The Missing Gene : Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes, Algora Publishing, New York. Netz, R. (1999) The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics : A Study in Cognitive History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schaffer, S., Shapin, S. (1986) Leviathan and the Air Pump : Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Szatmari, P. et al. (2007) “Mapping autism risk loci using genetic linkage and chromosomal rearrangements”, Nature Genetics 39, 319-328. Williams, D. (1990) Nobody Nowhere : the Extraordinary Autobiography of an Autistic Child, Times Books, New York. Williams, D. (1994) Somebody Somewhere : Breaking Free from the World of Autism, Times Books, New York.
#HAPTER #OMPLEXITY AND +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE IN $ISCUSSION
+NOWING #OMPLEX 3YSTEMS 4HE ,IMITS OF 5NDERSTANDING by Paul Cilliers
In different contexts there are different criteria for what qualifies as sound knowledge. To a large extent, science still makes use of a traditional understanding of knowledge that derives from Enlightenment thinking. This approach relies on objective experimentation, logical deduction and reductive thinking. Despite the usefulness of this approach, it cannot be used with success when dealing with complex systems. Complexity theory realizes this, but much of the work done in complexity reverts to the traditional reductive criteria. It is argued here that an acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues we deal with implies an acknowledgement of the limits of the knowledge we can have about them. A complex system can be given several different descriptions that are not reducible to each other, but are not arbitrary either. Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities should not be made to fit traditional scientific criteria, they should be used to reflect on these criteria critically. In this paper, following Morin, a distinction is made between “restricted complexity” and “general complexity”. It is shown that restricted complexity does not escape the old rationality. The introduction of a more radical understanding of complexity leads to a critical position that does not allow “scientific” knowledge to trump all other forms of knowledge. There is an inescapable normative dimension to all things complex. This implies that the claims we make about complex things are always provisional and limited. Such claims should thus be made with a certain humility.
! LEGACY OF ENLIGHTENMENT THINKING To a large extent we still live in a world where “scientific” knowledge trumps all other forms of knowledge. This state of affairs is a legacy of Enlightenment thinking, in the sense that the quest for verifiable knowledge was understandably based on a need for objectivity. [Novotny, 2001 : 50-51] describe this process in the following way :
44
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
In its historical contest with religion, a triumphant science acquired a monopoly of describing and explaining “reality”, which both resisted and also validated human wishes, fancies and follies. Because the physical world, including its chemical and biological processes, came to be regarded as the most substantial component of the “real world”, a scientific definition of reality became ever more plausible. As a result the authority, values and practices of science permeated many other dimensions of society. The everyday world shrank to what scientists had “discovered” and were able to exploit. This traditional or, if you wish, modernist style of scientific thinking is no longer adequate – to the extent that it ever was. The reason for this is not because of a frivolous postmodern reaction to modernity, nor is it merely because of some logical problem with the verification of experimental processes (in the tradition of Popper, Kuhn or Feyerabend) ; it is a result of the complexity of the phenomena we deal with. Contemporary society is characterized – irreversibly – by pluralism and diversity and also, we argue, volatility and transgressivity. It can no longer be understood either in terms of the norms and practices of scientific rationality […]. [Novotny, 2001 : 21] What is at stake when we deal with complex things is thus the appropriate style of rationality. The argument is that the traditional modernist rationality – established in the first half of the 17th century and based on the ideas of Galileo, Newton and Descartes in the context of a more settled Europe after the peace of Westphalia see [Toulmin, 1990] ; a style of thinking fundamental to the establishment of the Royal Society (or more precisely, The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, with the now extremely disconcerting motto nullius in verba) – is not adequate to complexity. Edgar Morin [Morin, 2007 : 5] gives specific content to the inadequacy of what he calls “classical science”. For him “classical science rejected complexity in virtue of three fundamental explanatory principles : 1. The principle of universal determinism, illustrated by Laplace’s Daemon, capable, thanks to his intelligence and extremely developed senses, of not only knowing all past events, but also of predicting all events in the future. 2. The principle of reduction, that consists in knowing any composite from only the knowledge of its basic constituting elements. 3. The principle of disjunction, that consists in isolating and separating cognitive difficulties from one another, leading to the separation between disciplines, which have become hermetic from each other. For Morin, this tradition has lead to wonderful results, but only in a limited context. In order to deal with a complex world, however, we need to acknowledge the limitations of this approach. An epistemological shift is required which replaces “reduction” with “distinction” and “disjunction” with “conjunction” [Morin, 2007 : 10]. In what follows an attempt will be made to give some content to this epistemological shift.
$EALING WITH COMPLEXITY An interest in complexity science has blossomed in the last three decades or so. Fuelled by the work of, amongst many others, Prigogine, Maturana and Varela, Mandelbrot, Kaufman, Gell-Mann and a generation of chaos theorists, the characteristics of complex
Knowing Complex Systems : The Limits of Understanding
45
systems have been studied intensively and numerous institutions have been founded devoted solely to the investigation of these issues. As can be seen from the present volume, the topic has become of central concern in a host of other disciplines. The mere fact that a lot of attention is being paid to complexity is, however, no guarantee that the epistemological shift referred to above has taken place. Morin is quite explicit that, even in complexity theory, the dominant or traditional rationality has largely been retained. In order to make this explicit he makes a distinction between “restricted complexity” and “general complexity”. Restricted complexity is, for Morin, exemplified in those approaches to complexity that developed from chaos theory and fractal mathematics. These approaches focus on underlying patterns and universal principles that are still highly reductive in nature.13 Restricted complexity made […] possible important advances in formalization, in the possibilities of modeling, which themselves favor interdisciplinary potentialities. But one still remains within the epistemology of classical science. When one searches for the “laws of complexity”, one still attaches complexity as a kind of wagon behind the truth locomotive, that which produces laws. A hybrid was formed between the principles of traditional science and the advances towards its hereafter. Actually, one avoids the fundamental problem of complexity, which is epistemological, cognitive, paradigmatic. To some extent, one recognizes complexity, but by decomplexifying it. In this way, the breach is opened, then one tries to clog it : the paradigm of classical science remains, only fissured. [Morin, 2007 : 10] General complexity, Morin argues, is not merely a methodology ; it involves a rethink of our fundamental definitions of what knowledge is. When dealing with complexity, the traditional method of analysis does not work. What is more, the divide between subject and object cannot be maintained in any clear way. This is how Morin formulates it : In opposition to reduction, [general] complexity requires that one tries to comprehend the relations between the whole and the parts. The knowledge of the parts is not enough, the knowledge of the whole as a whole is not enough … Thus ; the principle of reduction is substituted by a principle that conceives the relation of whole-part mutual implication. The principle of disjunction, of separation (between objects, between disciplines, between notions, between subject and object of knowledge), should be substituted by a principle that maintains the distinction, but that tries to establish the relation. [Morin, 2007 : 10-11] This approach is clearly not in favor of a general vagueness see [Cilliers, 2005] ; it hangs on to distinctions, but always within a certain context. [Morin, 2007 : 18-20].
13
Byrne [Byrne, 2005] argues in the same way. He distinguishes between “simple” complexity and “complex” complexity, and then insists that simple (restricted) complexity plays in the court of current orthodoxy : “This is why simplistic complexity is so attractive to the worst sort of evolutionary psychology and contemporary ideologues of market models. Write a few rules – the selfish gene, the territorial imperative, profit maximization, rational choice, or, preferably, a combination of all of these, and away we go. Simplistic complexity does deal with a kind of complex emergence but it remains reductionist” [Byrne, 2005 : 103]. McLennan [McLennan, 2003] makes a similar argument about the way in which complexity theory has been applied to Sociology. It seems, for him, as if complexity theory – and what he refers to is “restricted complexity” – is not providing a critique of outdated meta-paradigms, it is simply providing a new one.
46
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
To my mind, Morin is absolutely correct about the fact that much of complexity theory remains trapped within a traditional rationality. I witnessed a prominent theorist in the field claiming that everything which happens in society is reflected in the Dow Jones index, thereby reducing all the complexities of human society to a single index, and a financial one at that. The current interest that many complexity theorists have in power laws is evidence of a similar form of reduction. It rests on the problematic assumption that the world is fractal in nature. At least in the biological and social domains scale matters very much. Our knowledge of things complex cannot be free-floating and general, it is contingent and historically determined. Perhaps certain natural phenomena are more amenable to descriptions in terms of a “restricted” complexity, but to develop a deeper understanding of human and social phenomena we will have to move beyond Enlightenment rationality, even if that rationality is spruced up with a bit of chaos theory.
#HARACTERIZING COMPLEXITY A characterization of complex systems closer to Morin’s idea of “general complexity” must lead to a critical perspective. This view argues that complexity theory does not provide us with exact tools to solve our complex problems, but shows us (in a rigorous way) exactly why these problems are so difficult. This view has a more skeptical perspective on what can be done with complexity theory, and is developed from the following characteristics : 14 1. Complex systems are open systems. 2. They operate under conditions not at equilibrium. 3. Complex systems consist of many components. The components themselves are often simple (or can be treated as such). 4. The output of components is a function of their inputs. At least some of these functions must be non-linear. 5. The state of the system is determined by the values of the inputs and outputs. 6. Interactions are defined by actual input-output relationships and they are dynamic (the strength of the interactions change over time). 7. Components on average interact with many others. There are often multiple routes possible between components, mediated in different ways. 8. Some sequences of interaction will provide feedback routes, whether long or short. 9. Complex systems display behavior that results from the interaction between components and not from characteristics inherent to the components themselves. This is sometimes called emergence.
14
These characteristics were formulated in collaboration with Fred Boogerd and Frank Bruggemans at the department of Molecular Cell Physiology at the Free University, Amsterdam, based on the arguments in [Cilliers, 1998], and used in [Cilliers, 2005].
Knowing Complex Systems : The Limits of Understanding
47
10. Asymmetrical structure (temporal, spatial and functional organization) is developed, maintained and adapted in complex systems through internal dynamic processes. Structure is maintained even though the components themselves are exchanged or renewed. 11. Complex systems display behavior over a divergent range of timescales. This is necessary in order for the system to cope with its environment. It must adapt to changes in the environment quickly, but it can only sustain itself if at least part of the system changes at a slower rate than changes in the environment. This part can be seen as the ‘memory’ of the system. 12. More than one description of a complex system is possible. Different descriptions will decompose the system in different ways. Different descriptions may also have different degrees of complexity. If one considers the implications of these characteristics carefully a number of insights and problems arise : 1. The structure of a complex system enables it to behave in complex ways. If there is too little structure, i.e. many degrees of freedom, the system can behave more randomly, but not more functionally. The mere ‘capacity’ of the system (i.e. the total amount of degrees of freedom available if the system was not structured in any way) does not serve as a meaningful indicator of the complexity of the system. Complex behavior is possible when the behavior of the system is constrained. On the other hand, a fully constrained system has no capacity for complex behavior either. (This claim is not quite the same as saying that complexity exists somewhere on the edge between order and chaos. A wide range of structured systems displays complex behavior.) 2. Since different descriptions of a complex system decompose the system in different ways, the knowledge gained by any description is always relative to the perspective from which the description was made. This does not imply that any description is as good as any other. It is merely the result of the fact that only a limited number of characteristics of the system can be taken into account by any specific description. Although there is no a priori procedure for deciding which description is correct, some descriptions will deliver more interesting results than others. 3. In describing the macro-behavior (or emergent behavior) of the system, not all the micro-features can be taken into account. The description is a reduction of complexity. Nevertheless, macro-behavior is not the result of anything else but the micro-activities of the system. Yet, to describe the macro-behavior purely in terms of the microfeatures is a difficult task. When we do science, we usually work with descriptions that operate mainly on a macro-level, but these descriptions will, more often than not, be approximations of some kind. These insights have important implications for the knowledge-claims we make when dealing with complex systems. Since we do not have direct access to the complexity itself, our knowledge of such systems is limited in principle. The problematic status of our knowledge of complexity needs to be discussed in a little more detail.
48
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
#OMPLEXITY LIMITS AND KNOWLEDGE The argument that our understanding of complex systems is problematic in principle can be made in the following way : To fully understand a complex system, we need to understand it in all its complexity. Furthermore, because complex systems are open systems, we need to understand the system’s complete environment before we can understand the system, and, of course, the environment is complex in itself. There is no human way of doing this. The knowledge we have of complex systems is based on the models we make of these systems, but in order to function as models – and not merely as a repetition of the system – they have to reduce the complexity of the system. This means that some aspects of the system are always left out of consideration. The problem is compounded by the fact that that which is left out, interacts with the rest of the system in a non-linear way and we can therefore not predict what the effects of our reduction of the complexity will be, especially not as the system and its environment develop and transform in time.15 We cannot have complete knowledge of complex systems ; we can only have knowledge in terms of a certain framework. There is no stepping outside of complexity (we are finite beings), thus there is no framework for frameworks. We choose our frameworks. This choice need not be arbitrary in any way, but it does mean that the status of the framework (and the framework itself) cannot be used as the basis for objective knowledge. The generation of knowledge of complex systems is an exploratory process. As the context in which this knowledge is to be useful changes, will have to continually revise the framework that generates this knowledge. Our knowledge of complex systems is thus always provisional. We have to be modest about the claims we make about such knowledge. An understanding of knowledge as constituted within a complex system of interactions would, on the one hand, deny that knowledge can be seen as atomized “facts” that have objective meaning. Knowledge comes to be in a dynamic network of interactions, a network that does not have distinctive borders. On the other hand, this perspective would also deny that knowledge is something purely subjective, mainly because one cannot conceive of the subject as something prior to the “network of knowledge”, but rather as something constituted within that network. The argument from complexity thus wants to move beyond the objective / subjective dichotomy, as Morin [Morin, 2007] also argues. The dialectical relationship between knowledge and the system within which it is constituted has to be acknowledged. The two do not exist independently, thus making it impossible to first sort out the system (or context), and then to identify the knowledge within the system. This co-determination also means that knowledge and the system within which it is constituted is in constant transformation. What appears to be uncontroversial at one point may not remain so for long. One should also be careful not to interpret this state of affairs as somehow inadequate, as something to be improved upon. There is a necessary relationship between the imposition of a limiting framework and the generation of knowledge. One cannot have knowledge without a framework. Despite the fact that our knowledge is of necessity limited, these limits are enabling, they allow us to make claims that are neither relativistic nor vague see [Cilliers, 2005]. At the same time, however, such knowledge is not the result of
15
These ideas are elaborated upon in [Cilliers, 2000] and [Cilliers, 2001].
Knowing Complex Systems : The Limits of Understanding
49
free-floating truths ; it is contextualized, in time and space. Because it is not objective, and because we know that, we cannot use this knowledge as if it is objective. There is always a normative dimension to the claims we make, and we have to stand in for it. We cannot shift the responsibility for the effects of our claims onto some process we call “scientific”.
!SSUMING RESPONSIBILITY To a large extent the framework within which the natural sciences operate has to work with the illusion of objectivity. It is necessary to be absolutely as objective as possible, while simultaneously acknowledging the limits of the strategy at stake and of the reach of the claims made. Most good scientists will acknowledge this. The problem is, however, severely compounded when the methods of the natural sciences are imposed upon or, even worse, embraced in a simplistic way by the social sciences and humanities. The impression is then created that a traditional understanding of truth, which is problematic even in the natural sciences, should form the criterion for proper work in social sciences. It is not possible to think what the motto nullius in verba could mean in the human context ! We are not faced with a set of problems we can solve in a piecemeal way by chipping away at it using experimental procedures and good old Enlightenment rationality. We are confronted by a complex problem that is transforming not only while we are investigating it, but also because we are investigating it. An understanding of “general complexity” should help us to understand this process. The generation of knowledge is not a linear process, but one that is folded in on itself. Useful knowledge is making and unmaking itself continuously. For example, a Marxist perspective on the economy can be proven wrong at some stage, for example by the failure of Stalinist communism, but can again become useful as something containing important critiques of rampant and destructive capitalism. The central thrust of a general theory of complexity should therefore, to my mind, be a critical one. It should be constantly vigilant about the limits of our understanding instead of making brash and reductive claims about the insights gained from some mathematical model, like a power law, for example. This is not to argue that complexity theory cannot provide us with useful tools or help us with the generation of new insights : To the contrary. The insights from fractal mathematics, chaos theory and complex adaptive systems are fascinating. The argument is about the reach of these theories. If we still operate in a context where knowledge generated in the framework of the natural sciences trumps other forms of knowledge, it has become necessary to actively resist this tendency. This is the motivation behind seeing complexity theory as a critical position. Such a role for complexity theory would entail to simultaneously work on the generation of new ideas and to resist a simplistic assimilation of these ideas. It involves acknowledging the temporal nature of what we do and not to be intimidated by a culture of performance in which everything has to de done quickly and efficiently without giving enough consideration to the costs involved see [Cilliers, 2007]. The price we pay for clinging to a modernist rationality can be seen on many levels in our globalized world. From the perspective of philosophy, the most important one is the distortion it brings to our understanding of what it is to be human. Complexity theory should help us to deal with this question, rather than to play in the park with big business
50
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
and grand politics. We cannot look to scientific rationality to solve our ethical dilemmas. We will have to deal with them as contingent and unique things. Acknowledging complexity should help us to humanize science, not the other way round.
2EFERENCES Byrne, D. (2005) “Complexity, Configurations and Cases”, Theory, Culture & Society 22(5), 95-111. Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and Postmodernism, Understanding complex systems, Routledge, London. Cilliers, P. (2000) “Knowledge, Complexity and Understanding”, Emergence, Vol. 2(4), 7-13. Cilliers, P. (2001) “Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems”, International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2), 135-147. Cilliers, P. (2005) “Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism”, Theory Culture & Society 22(5), 255-267. Cilliers, P. (2007) “On the Importance of a Certain Slowness”, in Gershenson C., Aerts D. & Edmonds B. (Eds), Worldviews, Science and Us : Philosophy and Complexity, 53-64. Morin, E. (2007) “Restricted Complexity, General Complexity”, in Gershenson C., Aerts D. & Edmonds B. (Eds), Worldviews, Science and Us : Philosophy and Complexity, 5-29. McLennan, G. (2003) “Sociology’s Complexity”, Sociology 37(3), 547-564. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (Eds) (2001) Re-Thinking Science, Polity Press, Cambridge. Toulmin, S. (1990) Cosmopolis : The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, Free Press, New York.
#ONSILIENCE AND THE 3TATUS OF (UMAN ,EVEL 4RUTH by Edward G. Slingerland
One of the primary barriers to humanities / natural science dialogue is the intuition that integrating human-level truths into a scientific framework is somehow inappropriately “reductionist”. This paper argues that this intuition is based upon a mind-body dualism that is an inextricable part of innate human cognitive endowment. Pursuing “consilience” between the natural sciences and humanities thus requires the cultivation of a dual consciousness, where we acknowledge our inability to escape the lived reality of human-level concepts, while simultaneously seeing them as physical processes amenable to natural scientific explanation. E.O. Wilson, who delivered one of the keynote addresses at the 2006 World Knowledge Dialogue Symposium, has famously argued for the need for “consilience” between the natural sciences and the humanities : that is, uniting both areas of inquiry into a single, continuous chain of explanation [Wilson, 1998]. One of the main sources of resistance to consilience is the pervasive fear among humanists that bringing scientific frameworks to bear on human-level issues would be fundamentally and perniciously “reductionist”. There are reasonable and unreasonable aspects to this fear. Teasing the two apart involves getting clear about what it means to “reduce,” what different varieties of reductionism look like, and what status human-level concepts would have in a the sort of verticallyintegrated chain of causation and explanation that is arguably the goal of humanities / natural science dialogue.
4HE BOGEYMAN OF REDUCTIONISM To begin with, it is important to realize that any truly interesting explanation of a given phenomenon is interesting precisely because it involves reduction of some sort—tracing causation from higher to lower levels or uncovering hidden correlations. We are not satis-
52
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
fied with explanations unless they answer the “why” question by means of reduction : by linking the explanandum (philosophical jargon for the “thing” or “problem” that requires explanation) to some deeper, hidden, more basic explanans (the philosophical term for the “thing” or “solution” that explains a problem). Reduction is what we do as scholars, humanistic or otherwise, and when someone fails to reduce we rightly dismiss their work as trivial, superficial, or uninformative. When the deeper principles behind things are poorly understood – that is, when lower levels of causation underlying phenomena we are interested in explaining are not accessible to our prying – we are often forced to invent vague, place-holder entities to stand in for the missing information. Sometimes we are aware that this is what we are doing. For instance, Mendel could reason about the inheritance of traits without knowing how information about them was physically instantiated or transmitted, and Darwin could similarly map out the implications of natural selection without any clear conception of the substrate of inheritance. In such cases there is an implicit faith that the lowerlevel entities and processes will eventually be specified ; if not, the theory may have to be abandoned. A discipline can find itself in a dead-end, however, when it has postulated vague, placeholder entities without realizing that this is what it is doing – when it takes these unspecified and unknowable entities or faculties to have genuine explanatory force. The force of the argument of cognitive scientists and evolutionary psychologists who are pushing for consilience or vertical integration between the humanities and the natural sciences is that the humanities are stuck in this sort of dead-end, continuing to rely on impressivesounding but explanatorily empty entities and faculties such as “learning” or “intelligence” [Tooby and Cosmides, 1992 : 122-123]. Just as the entity of “protoplasm” postulated by early biological theory turned out to consist of a collection of distinct intricate structures with specific functions, so too will words like “learning” and “rationality” turn out to be a blanket terms for what are really a collection of specific, modular, evolved cognitive processes that allow human beings to selectively extract and process adaptively-relevant information from the world. Human level meaning emerges organically out of the workings of the physical world, and we are being “reductive” in a good way when we seek to understand how these lower-level processes allow the higher-level processes to take place.
&ROM PHYSICALISM TO THE HUMANITIES LEVELS OF EXPLANATION Having sent the bogeyman of reductionism back to its cave, it is now possible to talk about good and bad forms of reductionism – because, of course, it is really “greedy” or “eliminative” reductionism that most humanists are really worried about. In order to distinguish productive, explanatory reductionism from crudely eliminative reductionism, it is important to get some clarity about the heuristic and ontological status of entities at various levels of explanation. Although no evolutionary psychologist or cognitive scientist would purport to be an eliminative reductionist, and all give lip-service to the idea that higher levels of explanation can feature emergent qualities not present at the lower levels, there is a common tendency to nonetheless privilege the material level of explanation : we are “really” just gene-designed robots or physical systems, no matter how things might appear to us phe-
Consilience and the Status of Human-Level Truth
53
nomenologically. There are some very good reasons for this privileging of lower levels of explanation. To begin with, the physicalist stance (i.e. the notion that everything which exists can be described in terms of its physical properties) has proven extremely productive, allowing such dramatic technological developments as supercomputers and pharmacological treatments for mental illnesses. Moreover, there is an a priori reason for giving precedence to the physical : the structure of the various upper levels of explanation emerges out of and depends upon the lower levels, so the lower levels are causally privileged in this way. Molecules form and behave in accordance with more basic principles that govern both inorganic and organic substances, which means that a hypothesis in molecular biology that violates well-established physical chemistry principles is wrong, or else gives reason for us to rethink our physical chemistry. It is equally the case, however, that as we move up the explanatory chain we witness the emergence of what appear to be new entities, which possess their own novel and unpredictable organizational principles. The field of organic chemistry is based upon principles that emerge at the level of organic molecules, and which cannot be fully predicted from the perspective of physical chemistry. Generalizations about the behavior of organic molecules also tend to be less precise, and more subject to ceteris paribus or qualifying clauses, than the principles of physical chemistry. Similarly, no amount of intimacy with quantum mechanical principles will allow one to predict the behavior of macro-level solid objects. Even within what are sometimes assumed to be single fields, such as biology, there exist multiple levels of explanation, with structures at the higher levels being in no clear way predictable from or simply reducible to the levels below, and causal predictive power moving in both directions of the vertically-integrated chain. This mutual dependence and interaction of levels of explanation is taken for granted in the natural sciences, and is in fact one of the guiding principles driving natural scientific inquiry. The argument behind consilience, of course, is that the various levels of explanation in the humanities need to be hooked into their proper place at the top of this causal explanatory chain.
4HE LIMITS OF PHYSICALISM WHY WE WILL ALWAYS BE HUMANISTS Such a vertically-integrated approach to the humanities would see human-level realities – free will, beauty, virtue, morality – as emergent properties of physical systems put together in sufficiently complex ways, rather than the result of the mysterious and inexplicable movements of a “ghost in the machine”. Many hard-core physicalists therefore argue that, since human-level concepts are helpful for certain heuristic purposes, but possess no underlying reality, the rigorous study of human affairs will eventually be able to dispense with them entirely. A common analogy drawn by those who feel dualism will soon go the way of bell bottoms and disco balls is the shift in human sensibilities that occurred with the Copernican revolution presented a view of the solar system that that contradicted not only Scriptural authority but the evidence of our senses : the Bible states quite clearly that the sun moves around the earth, and this also happens to accord with our everyday sensory experience. Yet the accumulation of empirical evidence eventually resulted in Copernicanism winning the day – trumping both religion and common sense – and nowadays every educated person takes the heliocentric solar system for granted.
54
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
A basic problem with this position, however, is that there is a profound disanalogy between the Copernican revolution and the revolution represented by physicalist models of the mind. The Ptolemaic model of the solar system which places the earth at the centre of the universe, falls quite naturally out of the functioning of our built-in perceptual systems, but it is not itself part of that system : we do not appear to possess an innate Ptolemaic solar system module. Switching to Copernicanism, at least intellectually, requires us to suspend our common sense perceptions, but it does not involve a direct violation of any fundamental, innate human ideas. Physicalism as applied to mind does require such a violation, and this has a very important bearing on how realistic it is to think that we can dispense with mentalistic talk – that is, reference to “thoughts,” “desires” or “beliefs” as the causes of human behavior – once and for all. It has been argued that human beings are born dualists [Bloom 2004] : that is, we appear to inherently feel that there is something special about our own species, and that this specialness has to do with a kind of mental or spiritual substance completely distinct from the physical world and its laws. This appears to be an ancient human trait,16 although the extent to which it is species –specific is unclear. The inescapably felt reality of the mental / spiritual for human beings means that human-level concepts will always appear to have a special claim to reality for us.
4HEORY OF MIND OR WE ARE ROBOTS DESIGNED NOT TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ROBOTS The idea that human beings, like all other animals on the planet, are physical systems produced by a mindless, purposeless process of differential reproduction combined with natural selection fundamentally contradicts our conviction that human beings have souls. Of course, many modern western secular intellectuals might protest that they do not believe in a “soul,” but no cognitively intact person can get away from the powerful intuition that there is something special about people that makes them different from mere things. The precise characterization of what this special something might be differs slightly from person to person, but it usually centers around the possession of free will, as well as the dignity and responsibility that goes along with such autonomy. Although we are obviously capable of entertaining non-dualist ideas at some abstract level, we seem to have evolved in such as way as to be ultimately invulnerable to the idea of thoroughgoing physicalism. The cognitive module producing this fundamental intuition has come to be referred to by cognitive scientists as “theory of mind” (ToM), which governs our interactions with other people – causing us to “paint” mental properties onto what, when we take a step back, we can acknowledge is really just a sequence of physical states : pupils dilating, limbs moving, jaw and lip muscles contracting in a certain sequence. We cannot help but see 16
As Professor Bar-Yosef ’s contribution to this volume explains, archaic modern humans have been burying their dead for at least 92,000 years, and elaborate, ritualized burial is as good a litmus test as any of the presence of dualism. When an implement breaks, you throw it away, and the remains of living prey are disposed of as quickly and conveniently as possible. Special treatment of the human corpse indicates that a shift has occurred, and the human body is now being viewed as linked to something fundamentally distinct from objects.
Consilience and the Status of Human-Level Truth
55
the physical movements of other human beings as being caused by the workings of a nonmaterial mind, full of desires, thoughts, beliefs, and fears. This theory of mind also seems to be somewhat overactive : we have a tendency to project these non-material mental qualities onto almost anything that moves in a particular kind of way : geometric shapes in a short animation or single dots moving around on a screen appear irresistibly to us to be involved in goal-directed, mentalistic behavior, and for this reason engage our sympathy. We all know this experience, having to deal daily with stubborn, diabolical computers bent on erasing our data or crotchety old cars that refuse to start. The anthropomorphic drive seems to be universal [Guthrie, 1993], and appears quite early in development [Bloom, 2004 ; Kelemen, 2004]. We are obviously capable of withdrawing our projections when we have to, but it takes cognitive effort, which suggests that it does not come naturally and is not easily sustainable. Unless we evolve into a different sort of creature, then, we will apparently continue to irresistibly see meaning in the world – populating it with “angry” seas, “welcoming” harbors, and other human beings as unique agents worthy of respect and dignity. We will continue to perceive our work, families, and lives as being “meaningful” at some inchoate level, and to be strongly motivated to make the appropriate changes whenever we begin to lose this sense. As scientists, we can acknowledge that this feeling is, in some sense, an illusion. For better or worse, though, in terms of our human perceptions, we are apparently designed to be irresistibly vulnerable to this illusion – in this respect, Appearance is Reality for us human beings. This is where, in fact, we see the limits of a thoroughly “scientific” approach to human culture, and need to finesse a bit our understanding of what counts as a “fact” for beings like us.
(UMAN REALITY IS REAL Humanists and natural scientists concerned with the issue of levels of explanation and emergent properties have much to learn from the work of the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. Taylor is a humanist who has grappled with vertical integration and come away unimpressed, and he sees his work as a defense of humanism against the reductionist threat posed specifically by sociobiology, and more generally by the broader “naturalistic” bent of the modern world. We do not have to follow Taylor to his conclusion, which is essentially to reaffirm the dualistic gulf between the Geistes- and Naturwissenschaften, in order to feel the power of his basic position. His conception of human-level reality provides us with a nuanced, sophisticated model for understanding the place of the human in the great physicalist chain of causation. One of Taylor’s most important points is that human beings, by their very nature, can only operate within the context of a normative space defined by a framework of empirically unverifiable beliefs [Taylor, 1989]. The Enlightenment conceit that one can dispense with faith entirely, and make one’s way through life guided solely by the dictates of objective reason, is nothing more than that : a conceit, itself a type of faith in the power of a mysterious faculty, “reason,” to reveal incorrigible truth. In addition to the panoply of “weak evaluations” – such as a preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream – that we are familiar with, humans are also inevitably moved to assert “strong” or normative evaluations. This latter type of evaluation is based on explicit or implicit ontological claims,
56
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
and therefore is perceived as having objective force rather than being a merely subjective whim. For instance, I do not particularly like chocolate ice cream, and believe that the flavor of vanilla ice cream is superior. I do not, however, expect everyone to share my preference, and am certainly not moved to condemn my wife for preferring chocolate. I am also not inclined to sexually abuse small children, but this feels like a qualitatively different sort of thing : abusing small children is wrong, and I would condemn and be moved to punish anyone who acted in a manner that violated this feeling. If I were pressed on the matter, this condemnation would be framed, moreover, in terms of beliefs about the value of undamaged human personhood and the need to prevent suffering and safeguard innocence. All of the classic Enlightenment values that we continue to embrace as modern liberals – the belief in human rights, the valuation of freedom and creativity, the condemnation of inflicting suffering on innocents – are strong evaluations of this sort. Although the Enlightenment philosophes began disengaging these beliefs from their explicitly religious context, and we in the last century have more or less completed this process, this does not change their status as beliefs. The “self-evident truths” enshrined in such classic liberal documents as the Declaration of Independence of the United States and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not revealed to us by the objective functioning of our a priori reason, but are rather items of faith. Taylor argues that metaphysically-grounded normative reactions such as these are inevitable for human beings. The fact that we cannot coherently account for our own or other’s behavior without making reference to them, as well as the fact that they irresistibly present themselves to us as objective despite our lack of proof for them, says something important about what it means for something to be “real” for human beings. To reformulate Taylor’s insights into a naturalistic framework, we can say, in terms of naturalist perceptions, that our overactive theory of mind causes us to inevitably project intentionality onto the world – to see our moral emotions and desires writ large in the cosmos. It would be empirically unjustified to take this projection as “real”. Nonetheless, the very inevitability of this projection means that, whatever we may assert as naturalists, we cannot escape from the lived reality of moral space. As neuroscientists, we might believe that the brain is a deterministic, physical system like everything else in the universe, and recognize that the weight of empirical evidence suggests that free will is a cognitive illusion [Wegner 2002]. Nonetheless, no cognitively undamaged human being can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free. Similarly, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, I can believe that the love that I feel toward my child and my relatives is an emotion installed in me by my genes in accordance with Hamilton’s Rule. This does not, however, make my experience of the emotion, or my sense of its normative reality, any less real to me. Indeed, this is precisely what I would expect from the third-person perspective : the gene-level, ultimate causation wouldn’t work unless we were thoroughly sincere at the proximate level. The whole purpose of the evolution of social emotions is to make sure that these “false” feelings seem inescapably real to us, and this lived reality will never change unless we turn into completely different types of organisms. Completely extracting ourselves from moral space is as impossible as stopping our visual systems from processing information when we open our eyes, or our stomach from registering distress when our blood sugar level drops below a certain point. In this sense, then, human-level truth is inescapably “real”.
Consilience and the Status of Human-Level Truth
57
4HE IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICALISM WHY IT BOTH DOES AND DOES NOT MATTER To the extent that human-level reality will always have a hold on us, then, we are entitled to say that physicalism does not matter. This leads Taylor to conclude that the inevitability of human-level concepts is not merely a phenomenological observation, but rather a clue as to the “transcendental conditions” of “undamaged human personhood”, and thereby a refutation of any sort of third-person, naturalistic account of the humanities – and, by extension, of the project of consilience. If human reality is indeed real for us, why not follow Taylor and say that it is just as real as anything studied by the natural sciences ?
7HY PHYSICALISM DOES MATTER In short, because it is not the case. There is an important difference between literally believing that God created the world in seven days and thinking that this is a beautiful story that can mean something to us metaphorically, but must be put aside when we go about our daily work. Evolution is such a relatively new idea, and its message so fundamentally alien to us, that its real implications for our picture of human reality have yet to fully sink in, which is why most liberal intellectuals continue to believe that Darwinism does not seriously threaten traditional religious beliefs or conceptions of the self. It clearly does, however, and once we have begun down the physicalist path we cannot go back to the old certainties. This is not merely because it would be illogical to do so – although it would – but because we just seem to be built in such a way that we want to deal with and picture the world as it “really” is, no matter how unpleasant. This makes it impossible for us to continue to embrace, at least in precisely the same way, traditional religious ideals that appear to be in conflict with what we are convinced we now know about the world. And – at least as long as physicalism remains our current best explanation of the world – any religious or philosophical belief based on dualism is going to be in this sort of conflict. This is where the Copernican analogy is helpful. We quite happily live our everyday lives in a Ptolemaic solar system, seeing the sun rise and set and enjoying the felt stability of the earth under our feet. We are capable of acknowledging, though, that this appearance is an illusion, and that the earth is really racing through space at 108,000 kilometers per hour around the sun. Why does it matter what is “really” the case, if it makes no difference to the way we see things ? It matters because making important, practical decisions based on what is really the case, as opposed to what seems to be the case, works better. Launching satellites or sending off space probes simply would not work very well unless we suspended our intuitive Ptolemaic worldview when engaged in this sort of work. The same is true of human-level realities. The realization that the body-mind is an integrated, physical system is counter-intuitive, but treatments based upon this insight appear to be more effective than dualism-based treatments – pharmaceutical interventions, for instance, have arguably done more for the treatment of mental illness in a few decades than millennia of spiritual interventions, from exorcisms to Freudian analysis. Recognizing that there is no point at which the ghost enters the machine allows us to go ahead with stem cell research, and understanding that personhood is not an all-or-nothing affair helps us
58
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
get a better grip on what is going on with severe dementia in the elderly. Physicalism matters because it simply works better than dualism, and – once the reality of this superiority is fully grasped – this pragmatic consideration is an irresistibly powerful argument for creatures like us.
$UAL CONSCIOUSNESS How can physicalism both matter and not matter ? To take moral intuitions as an example, we need to see why it is important and revealing to ask about the adaptive forces that cause us to feel the force of moral claims rather than simply experiencing them as unquestioned truths. We also need to recognize, however, that, no matter what the origins of these intuitions, they are the spontaneous product of a very powerful, built-in faculty, the output of which seem inescapably right to us. This means that, as empirically responsible humanists, we need to pull off the trick of simultaneously seeing the world as scientist and as humanist, holding both perspectives in mind and employing each when appropriate. Thus requires cultivating a kind of dual consciousness, viewing human beings simultaneously under two descriptions : as physical systems and as persons. On the one hand, we are convinced that Darwinism is the best account we have for explaining the world around us, and therefore that human beings are physical systems and the idea that there is a “ghost in the machine” should be abandoned. On the other hand, cognitively intact humans apparently cannot help but feel the strong pull of human-level truth. When it comes to dual consciousness regarding physical and human levels of explanation, it appears that the human level will always be much more vivid and real to us – evolution would have done a poor job if it were otherwise. This means that taking the physicalist stance will require the same sort of effort and training that any counter-intuitive ability requires, and our ability to embrace physicalism in everyday life will always be somewhat limited. Francis Crick, at one point in his discussion of the “astonishing hypothesis” that the mind is nothing other than the brain, observes somewhat bemusedly : “I myself find it difficult at times to avoid the idea of a homunculus. One slips into it so easily” [Crick, 1994 : 258]. Crick was not alone. The interpretive space involving the perception of agency and consciousness, in ourselves as well as others, is a product of one of the most basic of human cognitive modules, and we will never escape its gravitational pull for long. One way to understand the kind of dual consciousness required by consilience is through the metaphor of “lending” employed by Immanuel Kant in a curious passage from the Groundwork, where he declares that we must “lend” the idea of freedom to rational beings : Now I assert that every being who cannot act except under the Idea of freedom is by this alone – from a practical point of view – really free ; that is to say, for him all the laws inseparably bound up with freedom are valid just as much as if his will could be pronounced free in itself on grounds valid for theoretical philosophy. And I maintain that to every rational being possessed of a will we must also lend (leihen) the Idea of freedom as the only one under which he can act. [Kant, 1785/1964 : 115-116] We know, in the physicalist sense, that we are not free, but in our everyday lives we cannot help acting as if we are free, lest we find ourselves exiled from the Kingdom of Ends – that is, no longer recognizable as undamaged human agents.
Consilience and the Status of Human-Level Truth
59
%MBRACING CONSILIENCE To conclude, then, we should not allow our distaste for physicalist explanations of the human to turn us into reactionaries. The subject of humanist inquiry is not the workings of some Cartesian Geist in the machine, but rather the wonderfully complex set of emergent realities that constitute the lived human world, in all its cultural and historical diversity. The realization of the thoroughly physical nature of this reality does not condemn us, however, to live forever after in an ugly world of things. For undamaged humans, other humans can never be a existentially grasped as mere things, and our promiscuous projection of teleology onto the world assures that we will continue to find the whole materialist universe a rather beautiful place once it is properly understood. Our innate cognitive mechanisms ensure that the modern scientific model of human beings as essentially very complicated things will not lead to nihilism or despair, nor ultimately detract from the felt beauty and nobility of human existence.
2EFERENCES Bloom, P. (2004) Descartes’ baby : How the Science of Child Development Explains what Makes us Human, Basic Books, New York. Crick, F. (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis : The Scientific Search for the Soul, Simon & Schuster, New York. Guthrie, S. (1993) Faces in the clouds : A new theory of religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kant, I. (1785/1964) Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals (trans. H. J. Paton), Harper Torchbooks, New York. Kelemen, D. (2004) “Are children intuitive theists ? Reasoning and purpose and design in nature”, Psychological Science 15, 295-301. Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self : The Makings of Modern Identity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L. (1992) “Psychological foundations of culture”, in Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (1992), The Adapted Mind, 19-136. Wegner, D. (2002) The Illusion of Conscious Will, MIT Press, Cambridge. Wilson, E. O. (1998) Consilience : The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf, New York.
"OUNDARIES "OUNDARIES BETWEEN $ISCIPLINES AND "OUNDARIES IN THE -IND by Ernest Hartmann
Boundaries are everywhere. Whether we consider the world outside, or the world inside our heads, we find regions, topics, or entities of some kind, and also boundaries between them. The regions, topics, and entities have been studied in detail, while the boundaries have generally been neglected. My collaborators and I believe that a study of boundaries in the broadest sense will be useful to us in numerous ways, as this paper will discuss. The boundaries are usually considered as simply imaginary lines.
#AN BOUNDARIES BE STUDIED I will demonstrate that boundaries can indeed be studied. In fact my collaborators and I have been studying them in detail, starting with boundaries within the mind. What makes boundaries amenable to study is the recognition that they are neither imaginary nor are they one-dimensional lines. Boundaries in the mind can be relatively thick or relatively thin. “Thick boundaries” means separation, keeping things in distinct compartments, making clear distinctions : black vs. white, good vs. evil, us vs. them. “Thin boundaries,” means easily crossable borders, merging or blending, shades of grey rather than black and white. The starting point of our studies of Boundaries in the Mind is an obvious one. No matter how we think of the content of our minds – whether we think in everyday terms of thoughts, feelings, memories ; in cognitive psychology terms of perceptual, semantic and memory processes (or “modules”) ; or in psychoanalytic terms of ego, id, superego, defenses, etc. – we are speaking of parts, regions or processes, which in some sense can be considered separate from one another, and yet which are obviously connected. The boundaries between them are clearly not absolute separations. The boundaries can be relatively thick or solid on the one hand, and relatively thin or permeable on the other hand.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
61
Psychologists have explored many different aspects of boundaries including perceptual boundaries, boundaries related to thoughts and feelings, boundaries between states of awareness or consciousness, sleep-dream-wake boundaries, boundaries related to memory, body boundaries, interpersonal boundaries, boundaries related to sexual identity and other forms of identity, group boundaries, and boundaries in opinions and judgments (Table 1). All this is discussed in detail elsewhere [Hartmann, 1991 ; Hartmann, 2001]. Table 1 Types of Boundaries. Perceptual boundaries Between sensory inputs Sensory focus or “bandwidth” Around perceptual entities Boundaries related to thoughts and feelings Between two thoughts or two feelings Between thought and feeling Around thoughts and feelings (free association) Boundaries between states of awareness or states of consciousness Sleep-dream-wake boundaries Between sleep and waking Between dreaming and waking In and around the dream Daydreaming Boundaries related to play Boundaries related to memory Early memories Recent memories and memory organization Personal past Future plans Boundaries around oneself (body boundaries) Barriers against stimuli The skin as a boundary Posture and musculature as boundaries Personal space Interpersonal boundaries Boundaries between conscious and unconscious and between id, ego, and superego Defense mechanisms as boundaries Boundaries related to identity Sexual identity Age identity : Between adult and child Constancy of identity Group boundaries Boundaries in organizing one’s life Boundaries in environmental preferences Boundaries in opinion and judgments Boundaries in decision making and action
62
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
0EOPLE WITH VERY THICK OR VERY THIN BOUNDARIES The concept of thick versus thin boundaries as a personality measure becomes most clear if we examine the many kinds of boundaries, as in Table 3.1, and consider extreme examples for clarity. A person who has very thick boundaries in all senses would be someone with a sharp sense of focus, who can easily concentrate on one thing while ignoring others. This person does not experience synesthesia (i.e. the neurological coupling of multiple bodily senses, such as for instance, the systematic association of particular sounds with particular colors. He or she keeps thoughts and feelings separate (“I don’t let my feelings get in the way of my thinking”), and is absolutely clear about when s/he is awake, or asleep or dreaming, experiencing no in-between states. This person has a clear sense of the separation of past, present, and future (“that was then, this is now”), a very definite sense of space around him / herself (“this is my space, this is yours”), and a clear, delineated sense of sexual identity (“I am a man, you are a woman, vive la difference”). The person will have a definite group identity (“this is my group, we do such and such ; other groups are totally different) and will tend to see the world in terms of black and white, us versus them, good versus evil. A person at the other extreme, a person with thin boundaries in all senses, may experience some synesthesia, will tend to let a lot of sensory material in at once, and may have difficulty focusing on one part of the input. This person will usually experience thoughts and feelings together (“I can’t imagine a thought without a feeling”), and will often experience states of being half-awake and half-asleep, or will become deeply immersed in daydreaming or in reverie, so that at times the boundary between real life and fantasy may be unclear. There will be less sense of clear body boundary and personal space. This person may be very aware of the past, and have it blend with the present (“I am grown-up, but in a lot of ways I’m still a child”). Similarly, this person will accept mixtures in sexual identity (“I am a man, but there’s a lot of feminine in me too”). He or she will not feel solidly a member of one group, but may be an individual taking part at times in many different groups, or perhaps a “citizen of the world”. In judgments or opinions about the world, this person will tend to think in terms of shades of grey, rather than black and white (“it all depends, s/he’s good in some ways and bad in others”, “it’s different at different times”, and so on). Here are two actual people from our files. Chuck is a businessman in his forties. His life is well-organized and well-regulated. He has a weekly schedule that guides him not only through his workweek but his weekends as well. He attends church and several community meetings regularly. He thinks in black and white terms, and keeps everything in airtight compartments. He believes that logical thought will solve any problems that come up in his life. Chuck can be emotional. He likes good food, he enjoys sex, he gets angry at times, but he definitely believes in keeping his emotions separate from his thinking. “My feelings just get in the way of making the right decision”. He and his wife seem to get along well. They never have fights. On the other hand they never seem very close or passionate. Their lives seem like two parallel lines that never touch. Chuck is a man with thick boundaries in just about all senses. Chuck and I sometimes discuss people who are very different from him. For instance, some women and men he knows seem to use their feelings all the time and do not to make clear distinctions the way he does. Though he agrees that such people may sometimes be interesting and creative, he is uncomfortable thinking about them. I ask him what image comes to mind. Chuck says, “If I were like that, I’d be a puddle on the floor”.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
63
Heather is nothing like Chuck. Unmarried, 35 years old, she plays the guitar, and she’s a composer. She’s creative and flexible in many different ways. She does not stick to a topic very well, and finds herself wandering off in all sorts of directions in her conversations. It’s hard for her to look something up in an encyclopedia, because other items nearby fascinate her, so she has to follow up on them as well. She sees the world in shades of grey : she notices gradations and appreciates many different points of view, so that it’s hard for her to make a clear-cut decision. Heather is unusually sensitive to sound and to bright lights. She’s also emotionally sensitive and easily hurt. She remembers crying inconsolably for weeks when a pet rabbit died. She and her boyfriend have a passionate, intense relationship. They’ve already broken up and reconciled three times in the one year they’ve been together. Heather is someone with thin boundaries and she mostly associates with others like herself. She considers her friends interesting, unfettered spirits. She also knows some people like Chuck. Of these, she says, “They’re all right in their place, but they’re kind of dull, rigid, unimaginative”.
-EASURING BOUNDARIES THE BOUNDARY QUESTIONNAIRE Chuck and Heather are extreme examples, lying at the two ends of the continuum running from very thick to very thin boundaries. We designed the Boundary Questionnaire (BQ) as a tool allowing us to quantify the thick-to-thin boundaries continuum. The BQ is a 138-item questionnaire (see Table 2) that has now been taken by at least ten thousand persons, and has been related to many other variables such as occupation, gender, and types of psychological problems that may occur [Hartmann, 2001]. Chuck scores very low (thick) and Heather scored very high on the BQ. Most of us are somewhere between the extremes, and some of us have a mixture of thin and thick boundaries. However there is a considerable statistical consistency in the Boundary Questionnaire, with high item-total and inter-item correlations. For instance people who give a high score to the item “At times I feel happy and sad at once”, and “I spend a lot of time daydreaming, fantasizing, or in reverie” are likely also to agree with “I believe many of the world’s problems could be solved if only people trusted each other more”, but are unlikely to endorse “Good fences make good neighbors” or “Each nation should be clear about its interests, its own boundaries, as well as the interest and boundaries of other nations”. In other words, the relationships are not random ; people who have thin boundaries in one sense are very likely to have thin boundaries in other senses as well. This has important implications for the ways people form bonds, and how they view broader societal, interdisciplinary or international relationships. For example, people with thick boundaries approach religion, science, and art in solid, black vs. white, thick boundaried ways. When they think about conflicts between nations, they think in terms of making a thick boundary peace. You build walls to separate the combatants, or if you can’t build walls, you make ironclad agreements defining who owns what, etc. A powerful legal document is more or less a wall. People with thick boundaries cannot imagine any different sort of peace. People with thin boundaries tend to think more in terms of thin boundary peace. Tear down the walls or at least move in that direction. Realize gradually that the enemy and we are not so different after all. Perhaps we can join
64
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion Table 2 Boundary Questionnaire : Examples of Questions.
Category 1 : Sleep/Dream/Waking
Category 2 :
Category 3 :
Category 4 :
Category 5 :
Category 6 :
Category 7 :
Category 8 :
Category 9 :
Category 10 :
Category 11 :
Category 12 :
When I awake in the morning, I am not sure whether I am really awake for a few minutes. I spend a lot of time daydreaming, fantasizing, or in reverie. Unusual Experiences At times I have felt as if I were coming apart. I have had déjà vu experiences. Thoughts/Feelings/Moods Sometimes I don’t know whether I am thinking or feeling. I can easily imagine myself to be an animal or what it might be like to be an animal. Childhood/Adolescence/Adult I am very close to my childhood feelings. I have definite plans for my future. I can lay out pretty well what I expect year by year for the next few years. Interpersonal When I get involved with someone, we sometimes get too close. I am a very open person. Sensitivity I am very sensitive to other people’s feelings. I am unusually sensitive to loud noises and bright lights. Neat/Exact/Precise I keep my desk and work table neat and well organized. I am good at keeping accounts and keeping track of my money. Edges/Lines/Clothing I like heavy, solid clothing. I like stories that have a definite beginning, middle, and end. Opinions re Children, etc. Children and adults have a lot in common. They should give themselves a chance to be together without any strict roles. I think a good teacher must remain in part a child. Organizations In an organization, everyone should have a definite place and a specific role. A good relationship is one in which everything is clearly defined and spelled out. Peoples/Nations/Groups People of different nations are basically very much alike. There are no sharp dividing lines between normal people, people with problems, and people who are considered psychotic or crazy. Beauty/Truth Either you are telling the truth or you are lying ; that’s all there is to it. When I am in a new situation, I try to find out precisely what is going on and what the rules are as soon as possible.
or confederate in some way. Overall, people with very thick boundaries can be considered “black-and-white” people and those with thin boundaries “shades-of-grey” people. Aside from the BQ we also have preliminary data on biological / physiological measures of boundaries and these correlate well with the BQ. For instance, people who score thin on the BQ show changes in their skin temperature when they imagine they are holding an ice cube, or imagine they are sitting by a fire. Studies relating BQ scores to brain imaging studies have not yet been done.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
65
7HO HAS THICK OR THIN BOUNDARIES Certain groups or professions may be characterized by unusually thick or thin boundaries. First, even though the items were very carefully written to have no intended gender bias, women consistently score slightly but significantly “thinner” (one half of a standard deviation) than men. There is also a slight age effect : older subjects score slightly thicker than younger subjects [Hartmann, 1991 ; Harrison, 2006], however no long-term studies have been done as yet to determine how boundaries develop and change over the years within a single person. Significantly thinner boundaries compared to control groups have been found in art students [Beal, 1989 ; Hartmann, 1991], music students, and mixed groups of creative persons [Beal, 1989], frequent dream recallers [Hartmann, 1991 ; Hartmann, et al., 1991], adults with nightmares [Hartmann, 1991 ; Levin et al., 1991 ; Galvin, 1993], adolescents with nightmares [Cowen and Levin, 1995], “lucid dreamers” [Galvin, 1993], male as well as female fashion models [Ryan, 2000], persons with unusual mystical experiences [Krippner, et al., 1998], and persons with a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, Schizoid Personality Disorder or Schizotypal Personality Disorder [Hartmann, 1991]. Interestingly, although art students have much thinner boundaries than average, this is not true of established artists, who as a group have boundary scores in the normal range [Beal, 1989]. Groups that score significantly “thicker” than average on the BQ include naval officers, salespersons, lawyers, patients with a diagnosis of Obsessive-compulsive Personality Disorder, persons suffering from “alexythymia” that is, an inability to express emotions verbally [Hartmann, 1991], and patients (from two different sleep disorders centers) with a diagnosis of Sleep Apnea [Hartmann, 1992].
"OUNDARIES IN RELATIONSHIPS I will discuss briefly how our “boundary style” – our thick or thin boundaries – affects many aspects of our lives. One of the most important boundaries in our lives is the boundary between others, and ourselves, especially “significant others” and ourselves. One could say without much exaggeration that every play and novel ever written deals with some aspect of these boundaries. I will outline here some of the major ways in which boundaries are involved in relationships, and how our internal boundaries affect our personal relationships. I will suggest that psychotherapy – where boundaries have been described and studied in great detail – can serve as a model for examining other more basic human relationships such as love and friendship. “We”, meaning you and I, or all of us, is a simple word but a very difficult notion, often slow to mature. No matter what our style of boundaries, it is an effort to balance a tenuous “we” with a previously established and sometimes overwhelming “I” and “you”. Especially when we have thick boundaries or are in a thick-boundary mode, it is much easier to think in terms of “I” and “You” roles. I’m an Easterner, you’re a Westerner. I command, you obey. I lead, you follow, etc. The idea of a more-or-less equal “we,” consisting of multiple interactions and interconnections is not always easy for us. It is especially difficult in traditional societies, and at times of threat or danger. It appears to be
66
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
more difficult for men than for women. When there is less threat, the ideal “we” can slowly grow and develop. This applies to individuals, to groups and to nations. A relationship between two people depends to some extent on their individual boundary styles. Two people who each have thick boundaries, such as Chuck and his wife, and are comfortable with their boundaries, can sometimes form a satisfactory “thick boundary relationship”. Each of them does his or her thing, and they interact at times when they happen to have the same interests or want to do the same things together. This sort of relationship can work very well for some people. It can be a peaceful relationship, though from the outside it sometimes looks like two children in “parallel play”. However, life is seldom so simple. Even people who start off with thick boundaries sometimes find their boundaries thinning and shifting when they fall in love. Two people with very thin boundaries often have an intense but stormy relationship. They may feel wonderfully close, but sometimes too close. They may become almost merged. One may feel the other is invading or taking over. Each is likely to be sensitive and easily hurt. There are likely to be arguments or fights, slamming doors, multiple separations and reconciliations. A relationship between two people with very thin boundaries is often beautiful and powerful, and often does not last very long. In people with a mixture of boundaries, a relationship, too, will have mixtures of thin and thick boundaries. There will be times of thinning boundaries – perhaps a brief intense period of being totally in love, – and then periods of thicker boundaries and more distance. With people, as with nations, periods of threat or danger often lead to thickening of boundaries. A person who feels hurt or threatened tends to shift toward thinking more of his own needs, goals and preferences. Thus some relationships move between loving, “thinning” times and more standoffish thick boundary times. In times of threat or danger, it may be more difficult to develop a new “we”, but there is a tendency to strengthen or thicken the boundary around a “we” that is already well established. In a tight two- person relationship, we tend to think “us vs. the world”. If we have a strong family relationship, we think in terms of the family vs. the rest of the world. In dangerous times, we often thin or reduce the boundaries between those inside the “we”, and strengthen the boundary around us, separating us from the dangerous world. Ah, love let us be true To one another ! for the world, which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain ; And we are here as on a darkling plain, Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night. (Mathew Arnold : “Dover Beach”) Two people, each of whom has thin boundaries and feels vulnerable, sometimes form this kind of “thick-boundary” bond to protect them from the rest of the world.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
67
,OVE FRIENDSHIP PSYCHOTHERAPY Thinking in terms of boundaries can help us understand all relationships in a new way. I’ll start with a discussion of psychotherapy and then use that as a model to discuss our more important relationships known as friendship and love. Psychotherapy – by which I refer to psychoanalysis and to all the psychodynamic therapies derived from it – consists of allowing the client or patient to free associate, to talk of whatever comes to mind or whatever seems important. Gradually, with the help of the therapist, the individual sees connections, comes to understand her or his life better, and perhaps make changes so that life actually improves. This process involves a breaking down of barriers and defenses of many kinds. There is an increasing openness, allowing potentially dangerous feelings and thoughts into awareness. The process of therapy clearly includes a thinning of boundaries, and it can make the client or patient feel very vulnerable. Thick boundaries are necessary too. Openness and thinness inside are possible only if the surrounding framework is thick and solid. On a physical level therapy takes place in a quiet, isolated or soundproof room, so that there are literally “thick walls” around the therapy. Usually there is absolute privacy and confidentiality. This too is a thick boundary. Even more important, the framework of therapy involves definite black and white rules. It must be absolutely understood that the therapist is listening for the patient’s sake, and is not introducing his or her own issues. In order for the process to work, certain things are absolutely forbidden. There must be no sex with a patient, no borrowing or lending money, etc. I have described psychotherapy as “making connections in a safe place”. The safe place is not only a peaceful quiet room but also absolute trust about the framework and the rules mentioned above. This trust develops only gradually. It sometimes takes a long time to achieve, and is in itself a major part of therapy. As this trust, based on solid (thick) features, is gradually established, the more thin-boundary aspects of the therapeutic work can take place. Defenses and other rigid patterns can be broken down and examined, connections between the present and past can be made, feelings for the therapist emerge and can be related to past feelings. Without the thick boundary framework, the fragile process of therapy is easily destroyed. I suggest that the same model (thinning of boundaries within a thick-boundary frame) applies to friendship and to love. It may at first seem bizarre to start with an artificial and recently developed concept such as the psychotherapy relationship – something humans have managed to live without for millennia – and use it as a model for other more basic and more necessary relationships. However, it makes sense to me, precisely because therapy is in some ways simple, artificial and isolated and therefore has been examined carefully in ways that the more tumultuous and complex “outside” relationships cannot easily be examined. I believe that love and intense friendship can be perceived in terms of a gradual thinning of boundaries, along the lines of “opening up”, sharing ideas, exploring feelings etc. They work best if there are solid underlying, well-understood, rules guiding the relationship – a thick-boundary framework, understood by both persons. There is acceptable behavior, and non-acceptable behavior in every relationship. The rules usually work best if they are black and white – in other words “thick”. There are many sorts of rules in these “thick boundaries”. Privacy, trust, and safety summarize a great deal of what is important,
68
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
just as in psychotherapy. Friends and lovers must be trustworthy and reliable in ways that make both of them feel safe. “I’ll always be there for you”. “I won’t tell anyone else what you’ve shared with me”. “I won’t sleep with anyone else”. “I’ll never hurt you intentionally, and if I hurt you unintentionally, you’ll tell me so we can work it out”. There are definite differences between psychotherapy on the one hand and love or friendship on the other, in that therapy is a one-way relationship or asymmetric relationship while the others are, in principle symmetric, two-way relationships. In therapy, maintaining the all-important thick boundaries is the therapist’s responsibility, not the patient’s. The therapist must keep communications private, the patient need not. The therapist must not scream at the patient or ask the patient for sex. The patient is free to do these things, and the therapist must answer, not by screaming back or having sex, but by helping the patient explore what’s going on. In friendship and love the two people have joint responsibility for maintaining the boundaries. This is not always easy. Some friendships and loves become too lopsided or one-way. But accepting this important difference, I believe that the model of thinning boundaries within a thick-boundary framework can be useful in looking at our friendships and loves (and incidentally, at the relationships between different academic disciplines). There are several sorts of love and friendship that don’t work out. If the thinning isn’t occurring, then the relationship isn’t progressing. “We’re not feeling any closer. This isn’t going anywhere”. If the thick framework isn’t there, the love or friendship can becomes chaotic. If one person breaks the rules of the framework, the other feels betrayed. If the thick framework is not the same for both, not understood in the same way by both, or not based on a mutual respect, that again can lead to problems. In many areas thick boundaries are valued (in government and business for instance), and thin boundaries often neglected. However, in close relationships, the opposite is often true. In love, in friendship, and in psychotherapy we can easily become enamored of the “thinning” – the openness, the freedom, the exploration – and neglect to check on the state of the walls.
)DENTITY THE GROUP THE TRIBE THE NATION WHO AM ) Starting with the individual, one of the great questions we all struggle with is “Who am I ?” Each of us answers the question in different terms, and using a somewhat different vocabulary. We are all members of the species Homo sapiens, or if we are religious believers, all “children of God”. We are part of a group, or of many groups. We are also part of a family, maybe of an extended family grouping, part of an ethnic group or a race, or part of several. We are citizens of a town, a nation, a group of nations. We also have jobs, careers, and roles in our society. Which of these defines us, which of the groupings tells us “who we really are” ? The way we answer these questions has everything to do with our boundaries. Some are happy to think of themselves as having a number of different overlapping or shifting group identities. These people usually have relatively thin boundaries in other senses as well. Others develop a very thick boundary around their group identity (“This is my tribe !” “These are my people”, “This is our land”) and these are often people who have thick boundaries in other senses too. When one feels one’s own group is threatened,
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
69
almost everyone tends to shift towards thicker group boundaries (see The Amoeba Principle, below.). This occurs even in those who have relatively thin boundaries in most areas. The more we feel surrounded by enemies, the more we think in terms of “my group” or “my tribe”. Such thick-boundary group solidarity can be useful at times of great external danger, but it can also become a danger itself. The recent history of Yugoslavia and of the Middle East illustrates this dramatically.
"OUNDARIES AND PHILOSOPHY THE LIFE OF THE MIND Philosophy concerns itself with large issues such as the nature of the real, the good, the beautiful. What I will do here is to present briefly a few thoughts about aspects of philosophy where consideration of thick and thin boundaries may be useful. Classically the first major portion of philosophy is metaphysics, dealing with basic questions about being and knowing. Is there such a thing as ultimate reality ? Ultimate truth ? Can we know them ? In at least one sense a study of reality can be considered a boundary issue. We know from our studies that people with thick boundaries distinguish reality and non-reality very definitely. They know, or claim to know, exactly what is real and what is unreal. Individuals with thin boundaries tend to have a less definite or more flexible sense of reality. They may have in-between states somewhere between the real world and fantasy. They may claim the distinction between reality and dream, or reality and non-reality is fuzzy or not very important. They may discuss a variety of realities. Probably for all of us “real” and “not real” are most distinct when we are in a thick boundary mode of functioning (see below), perhaps working hard to solve a particular problem. For instance if we are astronomers plotting the trajectory of an asteroid that might hit the earth, we need to know exactly which signals on our screens are “real” and which are “unreal”. The distinctions are less necessary, and become less definite, when we are dreaming or daydreaming, at the “thin” end of the continuum. Thin boundaries come into play when we’ve done all we can in our realistic frame, and want to dream up something new. Perhaps at times of peace and prosperity – associated with thinner boundaries (see below) – we are open to more possibilities in our views of reality. Truth is another basic category of thought. Our sense of truth vs. falsehood is certainly influenced by boundaries. Someone with thick boundaries thinks in terms of absolute truth : something is true or it is false, that’s all there is to it. The thin-boundary view involves a more relative view of truth and falsehood. Something may be true in one sense, but not in another, or true for one person but not for another. Life is sticky and complicated ! Many other basic philosophical terms such as “the good” or “the beautiful” are similarly influenced by our boundaries. They can be considered in absolute, black-andwhite terms, or in a more relative manner. It may be worth looking at whole systems of philosophy in the light of boundaries. One might consider Aristotle, Kant, and the “neo-Aristoteleans” to be aiming at the ultimate “thick-boundary philosophy”. Everything can be carefully classified and categorized. Our advancing knowledge of any field leads to ever clearer and more definite categories. Kant spoke in great detail of the categories of our thought and experience. His view is that making distinctions and making categories is the essential quality of the human mind.
70
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
Plato and his many followers take a more thin-boundary approach. There may be a belief in absolutes, but the absolutes are “up there” somewhere in the ideal world, and all we can do down here is to question our assumptions and our knowledge, become aware of how little we know with certainty, and thus slowly approach, but never reach, the ideals such as true reality, or true beauty. Another perhaps thin approach is taken by linguistic philosophers who try to show that all our knowledge and our categories are matters of language, or matters of definition, so that we do not know anything with certainty. Nietzsche stated that studying a man’s philosophy tells us far more about the philosopher than about the world. In other words our philosophical systems are part of our psychology, and we project onto the world our own styles, needs, and preferences. Our research on boundaries is in perfect agreement with this view. A person’s basic thick or thin boundary style influences the shape of his or her philosophy and the way he organizes his world.
4WO KINDS OF PEACE THICK BOUNDARY PEACE AND THIN BOUNDARY PEACE There are two different almost opposite kinds of peace and two corresponding ways for nations to make peace. There is the “thick-boundary peace”, the paradigm and symbol of which is the wall. In the extreme case the two parties literally build a wall to separate their territories. This is the peace that China tried to achieve with its Great Wall. A “thick-boundary peace” need not include physical walls. The boundaries can be expressed in binding documents as well as in stone. A fundamental belief of thick-boundary peacemakers is that territory, rights and privileges must all be divided and spelled out with the utmost clarity. “These areas are ours, these areas are yours.” “We will have access to 50% of the water from this river, and 50% will be yours, etc.” This is reminiscent of divorce agreements or legal agreements between corporations, and indeed the parties that forge an agreement following a contentious legal divorce are making a “thick-boundary peace”. The guiding principle is that the more clearly the two sides spell out their territories, interests and concerns, the more solid the peace will be. Just as a wall must be carefully built if it is to endure, so must the legal agreement. In this view, every detail is important. Solid lines of demarcation are essential. The wall still looms in the background. Totally different is “thin-boundary peace”. In its ultimate form, there are no walls. Dividing lines may be present, but are of little importance. Agreements as to exactly who owns what are insignificant details. Legal documents may exist, but no one pays much attention. The essence of the “thin-boundary peace” is similarity rather than difference. There is a gradual realization that “we are not very different after all. Perhaps we do not need to be enemies ; perhaps we can tear down the walls and let the frontier guards do something more productive”. “Thin-boundary peace” involves the leveling of walls. It may involve unification, merger, possibly even embrace. Those working hard at building walls or forging agreements to institute a “thickboundary peace” generally consider what I call here a “thin-boundary peace” to be an unrealistic hope, a utopian ideal, totally unattainable in the real world. However this is far from the case. The peace that exists at present between the ancient enemies France and Germany can be considered a “thin-boundary peace”. Frontiers are still present, but they are permeable, easy to cross. They do not matter very much.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
71
“Thick-boundary peace” is often made by leaders who have thick boundaries themselves, in the psychological senses we have discussed. Conversely people with thin boundaries are more likely to envision or plan a “thin-boundary peace”. However government and business leaders – people in power, are seldom characterized by thin boundaries. The above sections summarize a few of the ways in which thick and thin boundaries can be important in our lives.
/UR BOUNDARIES CAN CHANGE THE WAKING TO DREAMING CONTINUUM Though each of us may have a tendency towards thick or thin boundaries overall, our patterns are not totally fixed. To a certain extent our boundaries change, even in the course of an ordinary day. When we are involved in a focused waking activity, such as doing a math problem or chasing a fly ball in the outfield, we are functioning very much in a thick boundary mode. We want to be precise, we want to get things right, we do not want to be distracted. We need an exact answer to the math problem, nothing vague. We want to be precisely at the place where the ball is going to fall to earth so we can catch it. We need to carefully distinguish relevant information (signal) from irrelevant information (noise). When we are not engaged in such focused waking activity, we spend time in looser, less focused thought. When we close our eyes and let our minds drift, we indulge in reverie or daydreaming, and at night we dream. In these states we function in a thinner mode. There’s an entire continuum, from focused waking mental activity at one end, to daydreaming and eventually dreaming at the other end. In a focused waking activity, we resemble a person with basically thick boundaries. On the daydreaming and dreaming end of the continuum we function more like a person with basic thin boundaries. We engage in free association or loose association. We jump readily from one item of information to another, though the items are linked only very tenuously. We use the mechanism Freud labeled “condensation” – combining several items from memory into one image. For instance my dreams sometimes take place in a city that’s Boston, but also New York. In fact, people with very thick boundaries overall tend to spend much of their time in focused waking activity. And people with thin boundaries function at the daydreaming and dreaming end of the continuum more readily and more frequently. People with thin boundaries overall appear to be shifted towards the right end of the continuum, My colleagues and I have done a study of dreams and daydreams showing first of all that dreams are scored significantly more “dreamlike” and “bizarre” than daydreams. However, the daydreams of students with thin boundaries are scored (on a blind basis) just as “dreamlike” and just as “bizarre” as the dreams of students with thick boundaries [Kunzendorf, et al., 1997]. Thus we can consider the “state” continuum running from focused waking at one end, to dreaming at the other end, to be closely related to the “trait” continuum running from very thick boundaries to very thin boundaries [Hartmann, 2007 ; Hartmann and Kunzendorf, 2007]. Indeed there are a number of studies showing a high correlation between thinness of boundaries and amount of dream recall. People with thin boundaries recall more dreams than those with thick boundaries, and their dreams are also more dreamlike and dramatic, with more powerful imagery (summarized in [Hartmann and Kunzendorf 2007]).
72
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
4HE AMOEBA PRINCIPLE ATTACK OR STRESS PRODUCES THICKENING OF BOUNDARIES Our boundaries also can change in more dramatic and important ways, especially when we feel threatened. We have called this the Amoeba Principle. The amoeba spreads out its pseudopods when undisturbed, but when touched or threatened it reacts by pulling together, and thickening its “skin”. Like the amoeba, an individual who is threatened or attacked “pulls himself together”. He becomes defensive. He develops thicker boundaries in many senses. Societies react in exactly the same way. When attacked, we not only fortify our literal borders, but we think increasingly in terms of “us vs. them”, “good vs. evil”, “black vs. white”. Our boundaries tend to thicken. When we are threatened, our laws become tougher ; mitigating circumstances are brushed aside ; we no longer think “Well, he’s guilty but he had such a difficult childhood”. We tend to think more in absolutes. There are already a number of experimental studies in this area, showing that when people are made to feel threatened, by being asked to consider their own mortality, their opinions and judgments change in a number of areas. The participants shift towards “sticking to their own kind”. They become more absolute in their judgments, and tougher in sentencing hypothetical lawbreakers (Summarized in [Pyszczynski, 2003]). In many ways they are developing thicker boundaries. The results are very much in agreement with the Amoeba Principle.
)MPLICATIONS BOUNDARIES IN OURSELVES AND IN THE WORLD Studying boundaries, and learning to recognize our own boundaries does not lead to any immediate action. Rather boundaries give us a new way to look at the world. We become aware of new sides of our relationships and ourselves. We have seen how consistent people are in their boundary styles. People who keep thought and feeling separate and experience no half-asleep or other in-between states, are also usually those who have powerful tribal or group memberships, and those who think in terms of thick-boundary peace. All this often goes on without awareness. Once we notice our boundaries, we can change our actions or at least attempt to change them. Many people are able to make significant changes in their lives once they became aware of their boundaries. Many of us have appreciated only the organized, logical, focused thick-boundary parts of our minds, and neglected the broader, more emotionally-influenced parts of our minds that emerge in dreams and daydreams. It turns out that these thin-boundary aspects of ourselves can be useful in scientific and artistic creativity, and even in making major decisions about our lives [Hartmann 2001, Chs. 9 and 14]. Thin as well as thick boundaries are important. In our close relationships, some of us make the opposite error, valuing only the thin boundaries. Love, friendship and psychotherapy, as we have seen, have a lot in common. They all involve a thinning of boundaries, which works best within a thick-boundary framework. In love and friendship the thinning and merging have been appreciated, but the importance of the thick-boundary framework has often been unrecognized. Likewise it is important for us to appreciate the power of the Amoeba Principle. If we become aware of how our boundaries tend to change under threat, and usually thicken under threat, we can examine ourselves more rationally. This affords us more freedom to accept the changes in ourselves, or to discuss and question them.
Boundaries : Boundaries between Disciplines and Boundaries in the Mind
73
)T TAKES ALL KINDS Examining large questions such as boundaries between nations and the differences between “thick-boundary peace” and “thin boundary peace” allows us to look at international relations and peace in new ways. It becomes clearer that we tend to project our inner boundary styles onto the world. People with thick boundaries tend to make thickboundary peace. In government and business, and in academia, the top positions are often filled by people (men, generally) with thick boundaries. Greater awareness of boundaries may allow these powerful people to become aware of other (thin-boundary) possibilities they have overlooked. Noticing and acknowledging the nature of their boundaries may sometimes induce them to seek advice from people with thinner boundaries. Boundaries obviously play a major role in how we organize our academic disciplines. Most often those in charge of institutions and educational programs will have relatively thick boundaries. They will tend to be Aristoteleans or Kantians, and emphasize the importance of making careful distinctions, and defining fields and disciplines precisely. They may be less interested in, or aware of, inter-disciplinary possibilities, and the importance of thin boundaries. Becoming more aware of boundaries in all the senses we have discussed can help these leaders to appreciate aspects of thin boundaries as well. Here also, it is important to be aware of the Amoeba Principle. In times of stress and danger, when we feel surrounded by enemies in one way or another, there will be a tendency to reaffirm solid black-and-white distinctions, in academia as elsewhere. At such times, crossing of boundaries, developing new vaguely defined fields or projects will be considered a luxury than cannot be afforded, or even a danger that could undermine our strength and cohesiveness. Interdisciplinary projects, and in general a crossing of boundaries, will be easier to initiate and will be more encouraged at times of peace and prosperity. I have outlined here three major themes relating to boundaries in our lives. The importance of our basic boundary style (thick and thin boundaries), the strong relationship between the thick-to-thin boundary continuum and the focused-waking-to-dreaming continuum, and finally the Amoeba Principle, the way boundaries change under threat. I believe that greater awareness of our boundaries and the forces that change them will make us more conscious of our world, and ourselves and more aware of the ways we impose our internal styles on the external world. More complete self-knowledge will eventually lead us to better action in the world. Knowledge of our boundaries is a part of the task set us by the oracle at Delphi : Gnowthi Seauton (Know thyself !).
2EFERENCES Beal, S. (1989) The Boundary Characteristics of Artists. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University). Cowen, D. & Levin, R. (1995) “The use of the Hartmann Boundary Questionnaire with an adolescent population”, Dreaming 5, 105-114. Galvin, F. (1993) The Effect of Lucid Dream Training upon the Frequency & Severity of Nightmares. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Boston University). Harrison, R., Hartmann, E., Bevis, J. (2006) “The Boundary Questionnaire : Its preliminary Reliability and Validity”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality 25, 355-382. Hartmann, E. (1991) Boundaries in the Mind. A New Psychology of Personality, Basic Books, New York.
74
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
Hartmann, E. (1992) “Boundaries in the Mind. Boundary structure related to sleep and sleep disorders”, Sleep Research 21, 126. Hartmann, E. (2007) “The Nature and Functions of Dreaming”, in Barrett D. and McNamara P. (Eds) : The Science of Dreams, Praeger, Westport. Vol, III, 171-192. Hartmann, E., Elkin, R., Garg, M. (1991) “Personality and Dreaming. The Dreams of People with Very Thick or Very Thin Boundaries”, Dreaming 1, 311-324. Hartmann, E., Harrison, R., Zborowski, M. (2001) “Boundaries in the Mind : Past Research and Future Directions”, North American Journal of Pyschology 3, 347-368. Hartmann, E., Kunzendorf, R. (2007) “Boundaries and Dreams”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality 26, 101-115. Krippner, S., Wickramasekera, I., Wickramasekera, J., Winstead, C. (1998) “The Ramtha phenomenon : psychological, phenomenological, & geomagnetic data”, The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 92, 1-24. Kunzendorf, R., Hartmann, E., Cohen, R., Culter, J. (1997) “Bizarreness of the Dreams and Daydreams Reported by Individuals with Thin and Thick Boundaries”, Dreaming 7, 265-271. Levin, R., Galen, J., Zywiak, B. (1991) “Nightmares, Boundaries, and Creativity”, Dreaming 1, 63-74. Pysxczynski, T., Solomon, S., Greengerg, J. (2003) In the wake of 9/11 : The Psychology of Terror, American Psychological Association Press, Washington. Ryan, C. (2000) Personality of Fashion Models. (Unpublished master’s thesis, Saybrook Graduate School, San Francisco).
!N )MMUNOLOGIST´S 6IEW ON %STABLISHMENT OF A +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE by Daniela Finke
Research in Immunology has developed rapidly, and as a consequence of the increasing amount of discoveries in biomedical sciences, many sub-disciplines in immunology have been founded. In order to understand the complex nature of biological systems, immunologists need both profound knowledge and dialogue with other disciplines. In this article, the question is addressed as to how such a dialogue between immunologists and representatives of other disciplines can be achieved. The origin of scientific reasoning and inspiration is assessed. Three different approaches of dialogue as well as its framework requirements are discussed : (i) problem-based research, (ii) analogous research, and (iii) evaluation of research. Finally, perspectives and pitfalls of a transdisciplinary dialogue in the academy are reviewed. Overall, this discussion aims to foster dialogue and debate on the opportunities of crossing scientific boundaries.
'ROUNDS FOR SCIENTI½C REASONING In the Hellenic world, philosophy and science were inseparably combined in one individual person. The origin of philosophy has been called “wonder” (thaumazein) by Plato in Theaetetus, and Aristoteles follows this assertion in Metaphysics. Influenced by a humanistic education, my movement to fundamental research was driven by astonishment and curiosity in human nature. Without wondering, we would not mount an experimentally testable hypothesis. Karl Popper suggests in his book the logic of scientific discovery, that every scientific theory consists of an irrational act of creativity (induction) followed by rigorous logical consequences (deduction) and testing of the initial hypothesis [Popper, 1959]. To achieve this, immunologists use objective instruments and parameters, by which immunological networks can be monitored. The enormous progress in technological development in biomedicine in the last 40 years has permitted testing of biological
76
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
assumptions that could not be experimentally tested before. Therefore, scientific knowledge is restricted by the available tools in experimental research. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. In other terms, our current accuracy of measurement does not necessarily imply that our measurement is sufficient to recognize all biological processes in a living organism. This thought reminds me of Plato’s allegory of the cave, which describes prisoners in a cave sitting with their back to the entrance of the cave. Looking at the wall they see merely shadows of images that they believe to be reality. My own research specialization evolved from a long-standing interest in communication. When, during the course of my medical education, I entered the field of immunology, I began to reflect on how information about infections or chronic diseases was communicated within our body. All living creatures including humans, animals, plants and even microorganisms need defense strategies to survive. The immune system is such a defense system that is specialized to respond to various stimuli such as bacteria and viruses. In vertebrates it has evolved from simple innate defense strategies to a complex system of organs, circulating cells and proteins, which are able to protect the host from infections. Under certain circumstances, however, the immune system is no longer able to discriminate between “self ” and “non-self ”. This inability has fatal consequences for the body, and a chronic autoimmune disease (e.g. diabetes mellitus type I, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis) can develop, wherein cells and organs of the body become targets for the immune system to attack. After completing my University studies, I moved into basic research, although MD PhD programs were not yet founded in Germany. I started the equivalent of an MD-PhD thesis in Wuerzburg, Germany, in the group of an eminent virologist, Prof. V. ter Meulen. As a participant of the Graduiertenkolleg “Infectiology”, initiated by Prof. J. Heesemann, I profited from the exposure to topics outside my research field. During the study period, a lab rotation had to be done in research groups belonging to the faculty of biology. T.M. was a most influential and charismatic teacher. He organized workshops, where, after a long day of scientific presentations, we all sat together until early in the morning to discuss topics in science, culture, history, philosophy, politics and community. Later, in the laboratory of Hans Acha-Orbea, a recipient of the Josef Steiner Young Investigator Award in cancer research, I was confronted with challenging ideas of how virus-infected cells inform the immune system that the host is infected. During evolution viruses have developed strategies to circumvent the cross talk of the immune system ; by inhibiting transmission of the “danger-signal” their presence provokes they are able to escape an anti-viral immune response. Hans Acha-Orbea liked to explain the concept of virus-host interactions by adopting interchangeably, either the perspective of the virus or the host. This turned out to be an advantageous approach that fostered his creativity and led him to a number of important discoveries. When I wanted to join the laboratory of Jean-Pierre Kraehenbuhl, one of the leading scientists in intestinal immunity and a very talented musician, he imposed one condition : to practice Cello that I had barely touched for several years. Jean-Pierre, who was passionate about controversial ideas and discussions, allowed me to develop my own projects and create the fundament of my later research direction, which is focused on the development of the immune system. Intercommunication between various cell subsets is required for the development of the immune system. This activity of cells, which organize their environment, is a general concept in organ development and pattern formation (Fig. 1a). The term “organizer” was
An Immunologist’s View on Establishment of a Knowledge Dialogue
77
introduced by Hans Spemann and Hilde Mangold in 1926, when they discovered that a transplanted dorsal piece of the amphibian embryo can induce a twin embryo in a recipient amphibian embryo. We and others have identified analogous organizer mechanisms in developing lymphoid organs (for review see [Finke and Meier, 2006]). The similar rules found in organ development of different species, influenced my reasoning.
Fig. 1 Organ formation and survival of immune cells as well as cancer cells require a crosstalk between different subsets of cells. During organ formation (a), an organizer cell initiates pattern formation through inducing a positive signal and lateral inhibitory signals. The immune cells (b) and cancer cells (c) need stromal cells for their recruitment, growth and survival.
Although a huge body of experimental data has helped to unravel some of the mysteries of the immune system, there are many paradoxes, which are not fully understood. One paradox emerges from studying the immune system during pregnancy. The immune system of a pregnant woman should normally attack any foreign tissue, and her developing embryo is just that, since it expresses proteins encoded by genes from parental chromosomes [Moffet and Loke, 2006]. The theory of tolerance of the mother to her embryo was formulated by P. B. Medawar, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine / Physiology (1960). To this day, many questions regarding the mechanism of tolerance during pregnancy remain open and probably will not be fully resolved in my time. However, a mind open to challenging ideas and a continuous willingness to learn is one of the essential prerequisites for successful progress in immunological research. Challenging ideas frequently emerge when a research topic is located at the boundary of two or more disciplines. Trained as an MD and working as a biologist, I profit from the medical background in pursuing fundamental research. A hybrid between clinicians and researchers, as I am, can bridge the two, since research interests are often linked to a clinical context. In the course of my career, I have encountered a number of clinicians and scientists sharing common interest in biomedicine, and a good number who found the other party inferior and not worthy of exchanging opinions and knowledge. Imagination and creativity are essential for developing new ideas and finding problem-oriented solutions beyond known concepts in immunology. Many scientists foster their creativity by additional activities in visual arts and music. From Pythagoras onwards, science and music have been intertwined. In making music, taking a deliberate brake in exercising can improve the quality of the sound one produces. One explanation is that the
78
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
musician steps back from single phrases to a comprehensive understanding of the entire composition. If I approach too close to a computer screen, I can see single pixels but will lose the view of the whole picture. Likewise, our cognition in immunological research needs not only a profound knowledge of our own field but also a perspective of distance and an open mind to new ideas and experiences in un-related fields.
)NTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH The origin of diseases of the immune system is often complex and comprises genetic and environmental determinants as well as mental and social factors. Therefore, more than one discipline is involved in solving problems in immune health care and research. An interdisciplinary venture relies on the expertise of several professions and is characterized by a collective approach in finding solutions for one complex problem. In my opinion, the field of immunological research would benefit from an interdisciplinary problem-based approach. An approach, where several disciplines try to answer questions by using analogous concepts, is more risky, but may lead to fundamental discoveries and changes of paradigms. The critical evaluation of natural sciences by social sciences and humanities is an interdisciplinary approach, which is already established at most Universities. At the same time, it is probably the most debatable and conflict-ridden approach.
0ROBLEM BASED RESEARCH Problem-based research projects integrate disciplines, which use paradigms and tools that are not necessarily applicable to the others. One possible example of problem-based research is diabetes mellitus type I, an autoimmune disease that emerges mostly during puberty. Every year, more than sixty five thousand people are diagnosed worldwide with this disease, in which the immune system is no longer able to discriminate between “self ” and “non-self ”. As a result, cells of the immune system “auto-react” and destroy the insulinproducing cells. Insulin is a hormone that helps the body to use glucose for fuel. Without insulin, blood-glucose levels become elevated. The origin of the disease is multi-factorial and still not fully understood. To remain as healthy as possible, patients are dependent on cost-intensive daily injections of insulin. Despite this, they have a reduction in the quality of life and life expectancy. Networking collaborations between immunologists, microbiologists and endocrinologists help to identify the origins of the disease and provide new strategies for prevention and therapy. In addition, the collection of biomedical data and the use of bioinformatics and mathematics should allow both modeling of tolerance pathways and predictions about the role of the immune system in diseases. Social sciences help to clarify if the onset of the disease is correlated with mental factors, and how social parameters may influence the prognosis of the disease. Research in transplantation surgery advances the therapeutic use of transplanting insulin-producing cells. New achievements in engineering science allow the development of easy-handling insulin pumps and automatic blood glucose measurement. Finally, economical analysis provides information about the health care costs. In order to achieve problem-oriented initiatives, framework research programs have to be installed where opinions are exchanged and questions and requirements can be formulated together.
An Immunologist’s View on Establishment of a Knowledge Dialogue
79
A second example for problem-oriented research in immunology is studying “immunological stress”. The function of the immune system is influenced by many factors including genetics, age, gender, alimentation, hygiene, and mental stress as well as social and economic pressure. Other factors need to be explored. For example, does religiousness have an influence on the immune status ? In an interdisciplinary framework, representatives of genetics, immunology, neurobiology, social sciences, philosophy and theology could try to define a paradigm of “immunological stress”. The objective could be to proceed in this issue from a conceptual assumption to an objective analysis. Both examples illustrate that knowledge of different disciplines can be complementary used and may help to identify new, problem-oriented solutions. One principal requirement for a problem-based research approach is to have a platform for learning everyone’s terminology, for communicating results and for establishing a collective commitment towards therapeutic strategies. Understanding the complexity of the immune system requires a profound knowledge of biology and chemistry. Similarly, a chemist who wants to unravel the complex interactions of molecular components of organic and inorganic matter has to enter the domain of physics and mathematics. There has been an explosion in scientific knowledge over the last century and as a consequence, life sciences have become divided into various highly specialized research domains. Immunology itself has become subdivided into various sub-specialties to the extent that one individual immunologist would probably feel lost in a conference devoted to a distant immunological field. Research specialization is to some extent contradictory to the complexity of biological systems. For example, understanding the pathogenesis of a viral infection is impossible, if the analysis of virus-host interactions is reduced to one gene that is involved in the viral life cycle and pathogenesis. Virus-host interactions are complex systems, which encompass multiple components, from molecular interactions to cellular crosstalk amongst various cells of the immune system. The function of the immune system may be better understood through an integrated approach of understanding immunological networks. From the general systems theory formulated by von Bertalanffy [von Bertalanffy, 1969], immune systems biology has evolved as a tool to map biological functions and pathways in a single assay, and to monitor collective behaviors of many molecules simultaneously [Sette, 2003 ; Brusic, 2003]. Bioinformatics and computer-based re-modeling provide valuable tools to immunologists to make predictions in terms of our basic understanding of the immune system and in terms of disease prognosis / therapy. Altogether, a problem-based scientific approach integrating both theoretical models and databases, experimental validation and epistemological processes of various disciplines will aid the combat of immunological disorders.
!NALOGOUS RESEARCH Human cognition benefits from the knowledge of analogous approaches across various disciplines. In the mid 20th century, a young man named Georg von Békésy decided to study the function of the ear as compared to a telephone. His job was to develop a method to test telephone lines. After work he did his own studies on how sound is communicated in the inner ear. For his fundamental discoveries he was awarded with the Nobel Prize for Medicine / Physiology in 1961. Yuri Lazebnik from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories described an experimental approach in biochemistry by applying it to a problem in engineering. He compared “a radio function to a signal transduction pathway in that both con-
80
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
vert a signal from one form into another” [Lazebnik, 2002]. If one essential component of a radio is removed, it will not work any more. Similarly, gene deletion can lead to a severe dysfunction of the immune system. All biological systems function through a network of various signals on a molecular and cellular level. The function of the immune system is based on a continuous crosstalk between cells of the immune system and the environment. The concept of immunological communication bears a striking analogy to the concept of hosttumor interactions. Similar to cells of the immune system (Fig. 1b), tumor cells interact with environmental cells (named “stromal cells”), which produce factors necessary for the survival of tumor cells (Fig. 1c). In analogy to the immune system, tumor cells can induce their surrounding environment to produce the appropriate growth and survival factors. Little is known about analogous paradigms of communication in humanities or social sciences. There is, however, evidence for a common path of communication irrespective of whether radio transmitter, or cells in plants, animals and humans are compared. Messages from a transponder are translated into signals. A receiver responds to these signals only if amplifiers or repetitive signals lead to stimulation, which is above threshold levels. Similarly, immune cells only get activated if an activation signal is above threshold levels. We may learn more about the mechanism of communication if we gain insights into analogous models of other disciplines. A scientific approach that integrates developmental immunology and other disciplines could be to study how networks develop. During embryogenesis the immune system develops its various branches of defense by generating a network of cells and soluble factors. If the balance between these components is disturbed, a severe disease can develop. Autoimmune diseases, immunodeficiency diseases and allergies are examples of such a disturbed equilibration of the immune system. The general rules for developing a complex network are largely unknown. Networks form also in other domains, for example in a community, a city or a state. If networking in a community does not function, the community breaks apart. What are the criteria that control the growth and coherence of a network ? Furthermore, which factors restrict the size of such a network ? Social science, philosophy, mathematics and engineering could each be integrated in this project. There is a strong demand for education to provide information about concepts before learning detailed information. Many students in immunological courses do not see the wood for the trees, because they are overrun by information and data that apparently have no relationship to each other. As a consequence, they fail to recognize the interplay between relatively simple and logical concepts of the immune system such as the principle of selection, recognition, maturation, threat and death. Comparing data amongst natural sciences, social sciences and humanities may improve our knowledge and facilitate the learning of analogous concepts in human nature.
%VALUATION OF RESEARCH The objectives of an immunologist are based on the motivation to explore something that he / she does not understand. Why do all the components of the immune system exist and how do they work ? What is behind the curtain ? A variety of parameters influence our reasoning such as social, economic, cultural and historical factors. Holism, reductionism and vitalism were mainstream concepts amongst natural scientists of the 19th century. Even Louis Pasteur concluded from experiments related to fermentation that life is to some
An Immunologist’s View on Establishment of a Knowledge Dialogue
81
extent self-determining and cannot be explained by the laws of chemistry [Bechtel and Richardson, 1998]. The doctrine of vitalism was later disproved. Experiments in the 1980’s led to the conclusion that our body generates “suppressor cells”, which can actively inhibit an immune response. This doctrine was rebutted 10 years later, since the hypothesis on how these cells were generated turned out to be wrong. Today, the existence of cells named “regulatory T cells” with a suppressive phenotype is broadly accepted and we know that regulatory T cell biology is more complex than previously thought. Altogether, although we use objective measures, immunological research is not itself objective and scientific conclusions are inevitably coupled to a subjective outlook and the fads of the respective epoch. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker describes this as a subjective biology that is made by subjects and restricted by all conditions of subjectivity (der Garten des Menschlichen, II, 2). A subjective outlook can lead to false interpretations. Peer reviewing by external experts in the field may minimize the risk of false interpretations before data are published. On the other hand, knowledge embedded in personal experiences and intuition may help to discover new immunological pathways that are contradictory to a conventional dogma. In this case, it can be difficult to convince a reviewer of the significance of a study, albeit based on solid and reliable data. The dialogue with social sciences and philosophy may help to critically review scientific hypotheses and conclusions in the context of individual outlook, society and history. Such a critical evaluation is not always acceptable to natural scientists. In addition, it may be difficult to determine the influence of these parameters upon the accuracy of research. Therefore, the goals and consequences of evaluating natural sciences by social sciences and philosophy have to be studied and precisely defined. Critical evaluation of experiments has become an important component of ethics in biomedicine. Immunological experimentations with recombinant organisms, animal models or specimens of human origin must pass a critical in-depth evaluation by a bioethical committee consisting of experts and individuals from unrelated fields. The final goal is to commission biomedical research to the service of humanity and human health.
#HANCES AND PITFALLS IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY In order to implement an inter- and transdisciplinary dialogue at the academic and institutional level, the objectives and methods for its achievement have to be explored. To this end, common themes first have to be identified and discussed amongst various disciplines. Transdisciplinary thinking was shown to be achievable through multidisciplinary problem-solving [Lambert 2005]. Problem-based learning is part of the reformed curriculum at the medical faculties in Switzerland. Therefore, a problem-based dialogue between researchers, lecturers and practitioners would be a first step towards testing the feasibility of incorporating transdisciplinary projects at the University. To foster cross-disciplinary understanding, the jargon has to be comprehensible. Therefore, participants have to familiarize themselves with the vocabulary of the other disciplines. Finally, the opinions of all participants have to be integrated in a new framework of reflections that concern all participants. In summary, a training of all participants is required to learn how to cross disciplinary boundaries before starting a collaboration. Publishing and obtaining funding are highly competitive in immunology as well as in other life science areas. In order to survive the competition, a researcher has to develop
82
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
a profound expertise in his domain of research, and performance is measured by first or last-author publications in leading journals. Crossing boundaries and exploring unknown research fields may result in loss of productivity as measured by the standard performance criteria. Initiation of multi-and transdisciplinary projects therefore carries the risk of sacrificing a specialized research project to the pursuit of something more superficial. An interdisciplinary dialogue is an unproven venture demanding long-term investment. There is no obvious proximate advantage of an interdisciplinary engagement for the specialist career in immunology, and interdisciplinary initiatives are often spare time jobs. In addition, sharing scientific ideas requires absolute trust in the confidentiality of all collaborators. Having expertise in a research domain is often linked with the acquisition of scientific authority, academic or political influence and gain of financial support. Many scientists (some more than others) tend towards defending their specific domain because of the risk to lose these elements (Fig. 2). This is a major problem not only within the health care system but also amongst fundamental researchers, translational researchers and practitioners. A scientist in the field of immunology is recognized for publications in international journals in terms of number and impact factor. Currently, the impact factor of interdisciplinary journals is relatively low, something that may dissuade someone from investing in a multidisciplinary approach if he or she is ambitious for peer recognition and academic promotion. An interdisciplinary dialogue is time – and energy – consuming and can create conflicts. Prejudices, senses of being inferior or superior and misunderstandings are likely to emerge from an interdisciplinary approach. Therefore, a successful dialogue overall
Fig. 2 Science world. Some prefer to make a little firework in their own garden rather than to collaborate on launching a rocket with an important payload (source : drawn by D. Finke).
An Immunologist’s View on Establishment of a Knowledge Dialogue
83
depends on identifying those scientists who are motivated to undertake this venture and to invest in an inter- and transdisciplinary dialogue alongside their specific career progress, and last but not least before their retirement. In order to achieve the objective of a collaborative project amongst various faculties, new funds have to be raised. Beside European grants and international networking programs, the Swiss National Science Foundation has recently started a new program to promote interdisciplinary projects (HTTP WWWSNFCH%CURRENT$OSSIERS3EITENINTERDIS CIPLINARYASPX). In addition, Universities could contribute to multi-and transdisciplinary initiatives by awarding additional grants and fellowships, and by supporting transdisciplinarity in education. In Switzerland, strong efforts are currently under way to support transdisciplinary research as well as interdisciplinary education.
#ONCLUSIONS A dialogue between immunologists and scientists of other disciplines requires the individual participants to have detailed expertise together with the willingness to explore an unknown field. At the moment, an interdisciplinary approach is still an exploratory venture, which has no guarantee for success nor immediately contributes to an individual scientific career. However, there is a strong need for exchanging knowledge amongst highly specialized research fields in human health care. A problem-oriented initiative is a promising approach, which may challenge current concepts in immunology and lead to new solutions. The creation of a platform, where practitioners, lecturers and scientists can meet to learn each other’s language and to identify collective questions is a fundamental requirement before starting interdisciplinary research projects.
2EFERENCES Aristoteles, Metaphysics 2.982b12-13. Bechtel, W., Richardson, R.C., (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge, London. Brusic, V. (2003) “From immunoinformatics to immunomics”, J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 1, 179-181. Finke, D., Meier, D. (2006) “Molecular networks orchestrating GALT development”, Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 308, 19-57. Lambert, R.D., Monnier-Barbarino, P. (2005) “Transdisciplinary training in reproductive health through online multidisciplinary problem-solving : a proof of concept”, European Journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 123, 82-86. Lazebnik Y. (2002) “Can a biologist fix a radio ? – Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis”, Cancer Cell 2, 179-182. Moffet, A. and Loke, C. (2006) “Immunology of placentation in eutherian mammals”. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 6, 584-594. Plato, Theaetetus 155d3. Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of the Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London. Sette, A., Fleri, W., Peters, B., Sathiamurthy, M., Bui, P. O. (2005) “A roadmap for the immunopics of category A-C pathogens”, Immunity 22, 155-161. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969) General System Theory, Revised Ed., George Braziller, New York. Von Weizsäcker, C. F. (1983) Der Garten des Menschlichen, II, 2, Fischer Taschenbuchverlag GmbH (Ed.), Frankfurt am Main.
4OWARDS A .ONMODERN .ONHUMANISM by Mark M. Freed
This paper sketches a genealogy of thinking about the integration of the sciences and humanities in order to raise some questions about what a methodology of crossed views might look like. The three theorists discussed (Jürgen Habermas, Jean-François Lyotard, and Bruno Latour) offer critical accounts of Modernity, which alert us to important considerations in carrying out such an integration. Habermas argues that Modernity has meant the imposition of “instrumental reason”, originally associated with the natural sciences, as the dominant paradigm of knowledge and the consequent marginalization of moral and aesthetic reason. He insists that the antidote to the domination occasioned by instrumental reason entails putting all three modes of rationality back in communication with one another. Jean-François Lyotard is equally suspicious that some versions of rationality have displaced others, but remains skeptical that the kind of reunification Habermas has in mind will result in any real synthesis, insisting that such attempts at integration will necessarily eliminate voices from the conversation. Bruno Latour contends that the division of the natural sciences and the humanities is itself a consequence of the intellectual constitution of Modernity, which can only be rectified by abandoning the sharp ontological distinction between humans and nonhumans. While these observations do not add up to a single methodology of crossed views, they do point to considerations that ought to be factored into attempts to reconfigure the relations between the sciences and the humanities.
7HAT SHOULD A METHODOLOGY OF CROSSED VIEWS LOOK LIKE The World Knowledge Dialogue has set itself the goal of facilitating greater communication between the sciences and the humanities under the motto “Towards a Modern Humanism”, and it has given the participants of the first symposium the task of beginning
Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism
85
to conceive of that integration in the form of a “methodology of crossed views”. It has to be said that such integration has not always been anticipated as an unconditional good. My intent in this essay is to sketch a genealogy of suspicion toward such a project in order to raise some questions about what such a “methodology of crossed views” might look like. While these engagements with the relation of the sciences and the humanities do not add up to a single methodology of crossed views, they do point to important considerations that will need to be addressed. The genealogy I have in mind can be punctuated by three figures : Jürgen Habermas, Jean-François Lyotard, and Bruno Latour. All three offer critical accounts of the cultural phenomenon known as “Modernity”. It is in the early Modern period – roughly the beginning of the seventeenth century – that both the “modern” natural sciences and the humanism that undergirds the humanities / human sciences begin to emerge, and I want to suggest, first, that it is within the historical trajectory of Modernity that we ought to begin considering the benefits and liabilities of linking the natural / human sciences with the humanities.17
-ODERNITY The term Modernity is used within the field of cultural theory / history to designate a state of social organization characterized above all by a specific way of handling questions of meaning and value. According to Jürgen Habermas, Modernity’s distinctive engagement with such questions is a direct function of its self-conscious relation to the past. Thus, in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity Habermas begins characterizing Modernity with reference to its consciousness of time : it is, he insists, grounded on a sense of rupture occasioned by the discovery of the New World, the Renaissance, and the Reformation, “three monumental events around the year 1500 [which] constituted the epochal threshold between modern times and the middle ages” [Habermas, 1987 : 5]. Breaking from the past, Modernity sets itself the task of deriving its own criteria for what is true, good, and beautiful : “Modernity can and will no longer borrow the criteria by which it takes its orientation from the models supplied by another epoch ; it has to create its normativity out of itself” [Habermas, 1987 : 7]. This requirement for self-generated criteria was satisfied, 17
A first question needing clarification is what, exactly, is to be integrated with what? While the general meaning of the term “natural sciences” is relatively clear, what is being referred to by the labels “the human sciences” and “the humanities” is less consistent. A first division between the natural and human science can safely be made by distinguishing the study of natural phenomena from that of human (social) phenomena. A second division might then be made between the human or social sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other. The former (fields such as sociology, political science, psychology) study human phenomena using (generally) the methods of the natural sciences – that is some form of quantitative analysis. The humanities, on the other hand, also study human phenomena although they have developed their own analytical methods (historical, linguistic, logical, teleological, comparative, etc.). One very important thing at stake in negotiating the integration of these fields, then, is what kinds of analytical methodologies will operated in this newly defined territory. While it is yet to be determined what shape(s) the integration(s) of these domains of human understanding might take, I will provisionally group the natural and human sciences together on the basis of their (generally) shared reliance on quantitative analysis, and I will consider the humanities as a separate field of inquiry. For the purposes of the following deliberations then, I will understand “integration” in terms of integrating the natural and social sciences with the humanities because, as I hope to show, part of what separates them is the forms of rationality underlying each.
86
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
methodologically, by the Enlightenment via “immanent critique”, that is, reason’s investigation into its own operations. This is famously exampled in Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy. The Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Critique of Judgment articulate, respectively, the cognitive conditions that make possible the highest forms of knowledge, goodness, and beauty. The important implication for the trajectory of Modernity – and for re-thinking the relation between the sciences and the humanities – is that, according to Kant, truth, goodness, and beauty operate according to fundamentally different modes of reason.
4HE ENLIGHTENMENT The separate treatment of truth, goodness, and beauty in Kantian critical philosophy serves as an exemplary gesture of what Habermas refers to as The Project of Enlightenment, a response to the dissolution of the once-unified worldviews of revealed religion and metaphysics which treated questions in all three cultural domains within a single conceptual framework [Habermas, 1981 : 9]. (In Europe in the Middle Ages, for example, questions of truth, goodness, and beauty were all treated under the auspices of Christianity.) In the wake of Kant’s example, the Project of Enlightenment decoupled questions of truth, goodness, and beauty from one another in order to investigate each according to its own internal kind of rationality. These domains became, respectively, science, morality / justice, and art. The goal of the Enlightenment was to pursue research in each of these cultural spheres according to each sphere’s distinctive internal logic, and then to pour the results back into society for the increased rationalization (and therefore improvement) of everyday life. Vestiges of this plan are still to be found not only in the distinction between primary and applied research but also, and more generally, in the faith the Western world has historically placed in technological progress. It is reasonable to regard the phenomenon of Modernity, especially its Enlightenment phase, as the historical context in which the opposition between the natural sciences and the humanities arises. If the separation of the sciences and the humanities has led to undesirable consequences, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in our modernism.
)NSTRUMENTAL REASON Habermas insists, however, that in its historical unfolding, Modernity’s increased rationalization has not meant the unequivocal improvement of everyday life but very likely the opposite. Drawing on the analyses of his Frankfurt School precursors (Georg Lukács, Max Weber, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer) Habermas explains that so-called “instrumental reason”, initially associated with the natural sciences, has come to dominate moral / practical and aesthetic reason. In Dialectic of Enlightenment Horkheimer and Adorno contend, for example, that “what men want to learn from nature is how to use it in order wholly to dominate it and other men” [Horkheimer and Adorno, 1972 : 4]. According to Habermas, it was the Marquis de Condorcet who, in the seventeenth century, began extending the methods of the natural sciences to other domains of human explanations. What began, therefore, as an effort to understand and control nature developed into meth-
Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism
87
ods of controlling and dominating humans18. The dark occasion of Horkheimer and Adorno’s writing is the Holocaust, which, in the architecture of Nazi death camps, provides a compelling example of instrumental reason put to horrific use. Their underlying thesis is that the horrors of World War II were not the result of an egomaniac’s attempt to take over Europe, but an evolved consequence of Enlightenment reason itself. Less dramatically, but persisting more into the present, “Fordism” and “Taylorism” are examples of the application of scientific principles for more efficient management of industrial production and, crucially, workers. Habermas regards this tendency to domination as a structural feature of a reason oriented toward the knowledge of objects – the underlying form of scientific reason. Domination results when a subject (observer) treats all non-self entities – including other subjects – as means or instruments for the realization of its own will.
$ISTINCTIVE FORMS OF RATIONALITY Habermas’ strategy for neutralizing the dominating tendency of instrumental reason calls for putting all three spheres of culture back into communication with one another in order to counter-balance instrumental with moral and aesthetic reason. This can only happen, he insists, if the paradigm of knowledge of objects is replaced with the paradigm of communication between subjects – that is, between individuals. Habermas explicitly advocates completing the project of Enlightenment by re-integrating the spheres of culture separated by Modernity [Habermas, 1981 : 11]. Initially, then, Habermas’ call for the reintegration of the cultural spheres looks like a model for the integration of the sciences and the humanities called for by the WKD. As a defender of the Project of Enlightenment, however, Habermas is not without his critics, and his confrontation with one in particular – Jean-François Lyotard – has become exemplary of the confrontation between defenders of Modernity and those who sense the need to overcome it. Lyotard shares Habermas’ concern that in the historical unfolding of Modernity various domains of human understanding have not been allowed to operate according to their own distinctive forms of rationality. While Lyotard agrees with Habermas that Modernity has meant the ascendancy of something like instrumental reason, he is equally suspicious that the reunification of cultural spheres Habermas has in mind will not mean any real synthesis between theoretical, moral, and aesthetic experiences but simply a new structure of domination that continues to subordinate certain kinds of experience and modes of rationality [Lyotard, 1979 : 72]. In The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge, Lyotard offers a diagnosis of the status of knowledge in the contemporary moment that shares important points of correspondence with Habermas but comes to a different conclusion. According to Lyotard, in the postmodern era, the determination of which scientific statements are “true” 18
The move from dominating Nature to dominating humans puts me in mind of Kenneth Bainbridge’s chilling comment at the first atomic test at Los Alamos. Before the test Brainbridge and the other scientists were apparently able to differentiate themselves from the “sons of bitches” in the military on the basis that they were pursuing science, not trying to kill people. The story goes that immediately after the detonation Bainbridge turned to Oppenheimer and said : “Now we’re all sons of bitches”.
88
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
takes place not according to exclusively scientific criteria but, rather, within an essentially political context – that is, according to considerations of power [Lyotard, 1979 : 41-47]. He argues that in the era of Big Science, the testing of scientific hypotheses requires expensive equipment such that without large sums of money, one is unable to provide proof for the validity of scientific statements, and without proof, one is unable to participate in the determination of truth. According to Lyotard, the two groups able and willing to fund Big Science – governments and corporations – have a motive other than the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Governments fund research into weapons programs in the interests of national defense (or offense), for example, and corporations fund research in order to increase competitiveness, productivity, or market share : that is, to make more money [Lyotard, 1979 : 46-46]. And indeed, a tiny percentage of scientific funding today does not come from either government or industry. Lyotard concludes that “in the discourse of today’s financial backers of research, the only credible goal is power. Scientists, technicians, and instruments are purchased not to find truth, but to augment power” [Lyotard, 1979 : 46]. The will to augment power presents itself as another instance of what Habermas refers to as “instrumental reason”.
3CIENCE AND POLITICS Lyotard points out, however, that the branch of human understanding called “science” operates according to categorically different procedures than the branch of human understanding called “politics”. Most importantly, the statements that embody understanding in science belong to a fundamentally different class than those that embody understanding in politics. Science, Lyotard observes, is composed of descriptive statements about the way the world is, and they are validated according to their correspondence with their referents. Politics, conversely, is made up of prescriptive statements about the way the world should be, and are validated according to vastly different procedures. For one thing, whereas scientific statements are determined to be “true” or not, political statements are more commonly determined to be “just” or not. Consequently, statements of one class cannot (properly) be evaluated according to the rules of the other because the relevant criteria are not the same : the “language games” of science and politics, Lyotard insists, are “incommensurable” [Lyotard, 1979 : 26 ; Lyotard, 1988 : 128].
,ANGUAGE GAMES Lyotard’s thesis about the incommensurability of language games directly challenges Habermas’ call for the re-integration of cultural spheres on the basis that such re-integration would very likely subject some domains of human understanding to the validity criteria of a different domain. This implication has specific bearing on the question of connecting the sciences and the humanities because it raises difficult questions about what a “methodology of crossed views” would look like. Could the integration avoid the application of a single procedure of verification across both domains of human understanding ? And if not, according to what criteria would the validity of statements in this hybridized domain be adjudicated ?
Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism
89
In bringing to light these difficulties, Lyotard’s argument about the incommensurability of language games makes a case for maintaining the autonomy of science, morality, and art : including, more generally, the autonomy of the sciences and the humanities. Acknowledging these methodological difficulties means that whatever shape the integration of the sciences and humanities takes, it must allow these domains of human understanding to maintain their distinctive procedures and contents – even if those contents come into direct conflict with one another. Somewhat paradoxically, given the dangers of an overextended instrumental reason and the difficulties of incommensurability, preserving the conflict as a conflict may be precisely the point of facilitating communication between the natural sciences and the humanities. Lyotard uses the term le différend to designate “a case of conflict, between (at least) two parties, that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of rule of judgment applicable to both arguments” [Lyotard, 1988 : xi]. Acknowledging the integration of science and humanities as an instance of le différend means allowing these domains to make their own content contributions, as opposed to using, in the manner of instrumental reason, one domain as a means to fulfill the other’s goals. Practically speaking, without this respect for the autonomy of the various branches of understanding, it is difficult to imagine how supporters for the project will be successfully recruited. Failing to treat the integration as an instance of le différend means perpetuating the very worst instincts of Modernity : the continued instrumental use of one form of reason for the domination of human beings and alternative bodies of knowledge. Lyotard’s thesis about le différend further suggests that the sciences may need the humanities to secure the social and discursive conditions necessary for the sciences to engage in open investigation – wherever that inquiry leads. The postmodern humanities help maintain a climate sympathetic to open inquiry by continually reminding us of the contingency of all positions / perspectives. They thereby resist the hardening of any position into the kind of dogmatism that shuts down “dangerous” research in the name of whatever absolute principle is being touted at the moment. The humanities cannot continue to secure these conditions if they, too, fall under the spell of a reason that subordinates all questions to a single end (instrumental reason) or one that insists on a single correct way of looking at the world (religious fundamentalism). Something like this appears to be going on in the United States in the case of the Bush administration’s resistance, in the name of economic prosperity, to the general scientific community’s interpretation of global climate change and in its effort to curtail stem cell research on the basis of a particular interpretation of “morality”. These considerations suggest that even the sciences cannot will the extension of a rationality that claims objectivity to all domains of human understanding.
(UMAN WELLBEING There are, potentially, many motivations for integrating the sciences and the humanities. I take it, however, that at least one justification for such a goal is to bring considerations of human wellbeing (variously and broadly conceived) to bear on the output of scientific research. It has often been pointed out, for example, that since Hiroshima, at the very latest, it has become urgent to rethink the notion of science and technology as being unequivocally good. One model for integration along these lines would turn to the humanities for a stance specifically beyond the horizon of instrumental reason from which the products
90
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
of the sciences might be contemplated. The results of such reflection on the natural sciences would have to take the form of prescriptives about what research should and should not be carried out. And although Habermas’ account of Modernity points to the need to balance instrumental reason with other considerations, Lyotard’s thesis about the incommensurability of science and politics raises serious doubt about what such an integration would accomplish. The intractability of this problem calls for some new, perhaps highly unconventional, thinking. But, if the genealogy sketched out above is correct that the current configuration of the sciences and the humanities is the result of Modernity itself, the integration of these domains called for by the WKD will not be effected without radically re-imagining the landscape of these questions. The standoff of the Habermas-Lyotard debate thus points us in the direction of a third moment in the genealogy of suspicion toward the sciences and humanities as they are currently constructed, though not, again, to a solution but to additional features to be taken into consideration in configuring a methodology of crossed views. Like Habermas and Lyotard, Bruno Latour is concerned about the effects of the overextension of a particular mode of reason, and he offers a critical account of Modernity roughly parallel to those of Habermas and Lyotard which, however, gestures toward still different implications.
±0URI½CATION² AND ±MEDIATION² Latour characterizes the underlying conceptual structure of Modernity as composed of two sets of intellectual practices. Practices of “purification” isolate new nonhuman entities from a previously un- or less-differentiated world : for example the division of matter into atoms, then into protons, electrons, neutrons, and later into quarks, neutrinos and, maybe, most recently into vibrating strings. Practices of “mediation”, on the other hand, combine these newly differentiated entities with human interests. The development of antibiotic medications, disease resistant crops, and psychopharmacology “socialize” newly purified nonhumans into the human world [Latour, 1993 : 10-13]. Both purification and mediation remain necessary to the intellectual constitution of Modernity, for without new purifications there are a finite number of mediations possible ; similarly, without mediation there is little point in purifying new nonhumans. Despite both being necessary, however, in order to be effective the two practices must be kept separate : mediation can slow down or stop purification if it takes the form of anxiety about the consequences of introducing new nonhumans into human society. Genetically altered organisms released into the environment, is one instance of contemporary concern about the effects to the human world of the introduction of new nonhumans. Consequently, science has tended to privileged purification while surreptitiously pursuing mediation : “the essential point of this modern constitution is that it renders the work of mediation that assembles hybrids invisible, unthinkable, unpresentable” [Latour, 1993 : 34]. Latour’s concern is that this de-privileging of mediation has resulted in the proliferation of hybrid human / non-human “monsters” that humans can no longer control : nuclear weapons and ozone holes, for example. Latour’s larger point, then, is that the proliferation of uncontrollable human/nonhuman monsters is a direct consequence of science’s modernism, that is, its nearly exclusive identification with purification.
Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism
91
"EYOND LANGUAGE AND HUMAN COGNITION Latour is equally critical of the persistence of modernist purification in even the “postmodern” humanities, pointing to the “linguistic turn” in philosophy and cultural studies around the beginning of the twentieth century [Latour, 1993 : 62]. The term refers to the general tendency to treat questions in the humanities as semiotic : that is, as questions about meaning rather than being. In particular, Latour has in mind the privileged place of “discourse” in contemporary humanities work : the view that language and the conceptual categories with which humans make sense of the world have only an uncertain relation to what lies beyond language and human cognition. Because human thought cannot operate apart from language and the categories we use to organize understanding, certainty about what lies beyond this realm of discourse is not theoretically possible. One early twentieth-century articulation of this position is Wittgenstein’s famous proposition 7 from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus : “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen” [About that which one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence]. On this model, therefore, talk about “reality” – the way the world actually is – is meaningless. One implication of this view has been to purge the humanities of reference to the nonhuman world – to anything beyond language and discourse – on the grounds that nothing meaningful can be said about it.19 According to Latour, this view makes “discourse not a transparent intermediary that would put the human subject in contact with the natural world, but a mediator independent of nature and society alike” [Latour, 1993 : 62]. Latour’s account of the persistence of modernism in contemporary thought raises important considerations for a methodology of crossed views. According to his account, modernist purification in the sciences leads to the hypostatization and retreat into a nonhuman world ; in the humanities it leads to the hypostatization and retreat into an exclusively human domain. Combined, these developments point to the most general and pervasive effect of modernism and one that stands in the way of the WKD’s goal : the sharp ontological distinction between a nonhuman domain of Nature separated from a human realm of Culture. It would seem that this fundamental conceptual feature of the contemporary intellectual landscape would have to be overcome by those seeking to get the sciences and the humanities into purposive communication with one another. In short, they will have to recognize their domains as overlapping. Latour’s recommendation is that we stop being modern – that is, stop conceiving of Nature as distinct realm separated from Culture. Since postmodernism only perpetuates modernist purification rather than overcoming it, the only real alternative is to become thoroughly “unmodern”, “amodern”, or “nonmodern”. This involves (re) connecting the work of purification with that of mediation in order to reassemble nonhuman Nature and human Culture into a single, continuous domain in order to contemplate the consequence to the human world of introducing new nonhumans. This does not (necessarily) entail a complete reconstruction of the natural sciences or the humanities. A reconfiguration of those conceptual boundaries is virtually unthink19
It is worth noting that the natural sciences underwent this same purification around the same time in, for example, the work of Ernst Mach, whose positivism attempted to purge science of all metaphysics – that is, to eliminate the use of all terms like “heat” and “mass” on the basis that these are abstractions corresponding to nothing real in nature. See [Mach, 1959].
92
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
able. But it might mean – probably does mean – that those who sense the urgency of addressing the fragmentation of cultural spheres will have to deviate from the familiar ways of looking at the world supplied by the sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other.
4HE DISTINCTION BETWEEN .ATURE AND #ULTURE From the point of view of the sciences, abandoning the ontological distinction between Nature and Culture will mean conceiving of science not as a discourse of immutable truths validated by the way the world really is, but as a discourse that interlaces the human and nonhuman domains through production of human / nonhuman hybrids that science makes available via its practices of mediation. Making this realization will at least point us in the direction of reconnecting the spheres of culture that became fragmented in Modernity. This alternative, “nonmodern”, conception of science, which Latour terms Science No. 2, refers to “the gaining of access, through experiments and calculations, to entities that at first do not have the same characteristics as humans do. […]. Science No. 2 deals with nonhumans, which in the beginning are foreign to social life, and which are slowly socialized in our midst through the channels of laboratories, expeditions, and institutions […]” [Latour, 1999 : 259]. In short, a nonmodern conception of science recognizes the human dimension in the production of knowledge about the nonhuman. If handled appropriately, this may go some distance to obviating the problem of incommensurable language games by reconceptualizing science along lines more parallel to discourses about the human.
4HE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME The shape of nonmodernism in the humanities has yet to be worked out. It will, however, entail thinking through questions of meaning and value without modernism’s purification, including its central purified entity : “humanity”. Something like this has been going on for quite a while. Modern philosophy is conventionally understood to begin with Descartes’ effort to establish one truth upon which the rest of human understanding could be built. In cogito ergo sum Descartes thought he observed the certainty of self-consciousness – that is, the irrefutable certainty of a self conscious of itself. The Cartesian cogito installs the self-conscious human self at / as the center, thereby establishing not just humanism (the positioning of human concerns as central) but, more specifically, subject-centered reason, which Habermas regards as the nucleus of instrumental reason. The humanist subject rests upon the hypostatization of an autonomous, atomistic, nuclear “self ” at the center of an individual’s identity, which, however, turns out on closer inspection not to be as autonomous or transparent as Descartes thought. Beginning most notably with Karl Marx in the middle of the nineteenth-century, a central and persistent concern of Western philosophy has been the demystification of the supposed self-sufficiency and autonomy of the Cartesian subject. With reference to either its ontology (mode of being) or its ideology (the system of ideas it carries with it), Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, Althusser, Foucault, and Derrida all uncover in one way or another the contingent nature of the subject. A consequence of de-centering the Cartesian subject has been that, without this central anchor
Towards a Nonmodern Nonhumanism
93
point, the “humanism” which such a subject supports has become a problematic and largely abandoned concept in contemporary philosophical and cultural work, so much so, in fact that a number of theorists have begun to use the term “posthuman” and its corollary “posthumanites”20. Latour observes, however, that these understandings of the self are carried out largely in reference to the subject’s dependency on a social (human) context – still cut off from Nature and therefore still an instance of modernist purification [Latour, 1999 : 65]. One implication of his account of the proliferation of human / nonhuman hybrids is that the humanities will increasingly have to take account of the nonhuman dimensions of the human world. Despite the ongoing critique of the humanist subject, this work has yet to be extensively undertaken. I submit, then, that the problem to be addressed by an integration of the sciences and the humanities is specifically a problem of Modernity, and, moreover, that humanism is precisely what we do not want. Continuing to think of Nature and Culture as discontinuous perpetuates the view of science and humanities as incommensurable language games. Collapsing the distance between them, however, incurs the risk of obliterating le différend. This is a real danger for which there are no clear methodological solutions. The best we can do as we attempt to think the sciences and humanities together is to keep our ears open to voices threatened with being eliminated from the conversation. It is difficult to predict how many of those working in the scientific and cultural fields will be willing to abandon conventional (Modern) ways of carving up experience. I suspect few, at least at the moment. But something on these lines will be necessary if we are to effect a genuine integration. A methodology of crossed views, therefore, will not be served by a modern humanism, but something more like a nonmodern nonhumanism.
2EFERENCES Habermas, J. (1981) “Modernity versus Postmodernity”, New German Critique 22, 3-14. Habermas, J. (1987) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, MIT Press, Cambridge. Hayles, K. (1999) How We Became Posthuman : the Virtual Body in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, University of Chicago Press Chicago. Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. (1944) Dialectic of Enlightenment, Continuum, New York. Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Latour, B. (1999) Pandora’s Hope : Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979) The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Lyotard, J.-F. (1988) The Differend : Phrases in Dispute, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Mach, E. (1959) The Analysis of the Sensations : and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, Dover Publications, New York.
20
See for one example Kathryn Hayles’s How We Became Posthuman : Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics [Hayles 1999].
0ROMOTING 3CIENTI½C $IALOGUE AS A ,IFELONG ,EARNING 0ROCESS by Michel Alhadeff-Jones
The aim of this paper is to reconsider some of the stakes involved in the dialogue between sciences and between scientists, considering it as a complex and critical learning process. Dialogue – as conversation, expression, performance and negotiation – can be conceived in several ways. It carries both an epistemic and an experiential side. It involves simultaneously heterogeneous theories and identities. Because it involves fragmented scientific languages, it also requires a shared vision. But above all, what seems critical to acknowledge is that dialogue is a matter of transformation. And because transformation is also a matter of learning, the promotion of dialogue between sciences should be perceived as a virtuous spiral involving : instrumental learning (to dialogue), communicational learning (what we mean by dialoguing) and emancipatory learning (to challenge our core assumptions about dialogue and sciences). Considering the evolution of sciences as a double process embedded in the production of knowledge and the self-development of researchers raises the question of how to conceive simultaneously the relationships between these two major stakes. From a practical point of view, considering scientific dialogue as a lifelong learning process would finally suggest the management of forums like the World Knowledge Dialogue (WKD) as a privileged educational opportunity to be designed following what is known about science as a social practice and about researchers as adult learners. Based on the first edition of this forum, four suggestions are finally considered : favoring heterogeneity ; valorizing formal knowledge as well as lived experience ; acknowledging the learning dimension involved in the process of sharing ; and confronting professional experience with knowledge produced about sciences.
Promoting Scientific Dialogue as a Lifelong Learning Process
95
#ONCEIVING SCIENTI½C DIALOGUE $IALOGUE AS A COMPLEX PROCESS From the etymological point of view, “dialogue” has been used in various ways, enriching its meaning. Its Greek and Latin origins (dialogos, dialogus) evocate the idea of carrying a conversation ; it appears then connoted by the initial use made by Aristotle and Plato to describe their philosophical discussions and their interchange of thoughts. In French, from the 16th c. the word is used to describe in a literary work a conversation between two or more persons. Its uses in theater first and then in cinema, radio and TV contributed to stress the expressive and performative dimensions which may be associated to it. During the 20th century, the term “dialogue” takes a new color with its use in politics. It becomes then synonymous with social negotiation, or diplomatic contact, between the representatives of two nations, groups, or the like. This expression appears finally connoted as a valuable or constructive discussion or communication [Rey, 2000 ; Simpson et al., 1989]. Looking to promote dialogue between scientists can be indeed interpreted following the various meanings attached to this word. The enterprise can be perceived through the philosophical dimension associated to an exchange of thoughts. It can also be interpreted as an opportunity for people to express themselves following a logic of representation allowing them to perform according to the rules of their disciplines. It finally stresses the value of communication, which is always a negotiation of meanings and values, belonging to the groups represented. Considering “dialogue” as a complex process should constitute an invitation to take into consideration its heterogeneity of meanings. Its use should always bring into question what is involved by such a process. Beyond the knowledge shared, what is expressed ? What is performed ? What is negotiated ? What is represented ? What is constructed ? Following this perspective, this paper proposes to look beyond the knowledge shared and challenge what the process of dialoguing carries by itself, especially in terms of learning.
$IALOGUE IDENTITY AND SCIENTI½C WAYS OF KNOWING What makes scientists similar enough to dialogue with each other and different enough to learn something from each other ? Adopting a perspective inspired by anthropology of knowledge [Morin, 1986, 1991 ; Le Grand, 2004], identity and otherness (altérité) characterizing heterogeneous positions seems to appear at the core of the resources grounding a possible dialogue between scientists. They can be perceived at least at two levels : an epistemic one (every scientist refers to specific epistemologies, theories, methodologies, frameworks, etc.) and an experiential one (every scientist has his / her own personal and professional life experience). Wanting to learn from each other does not mean that scientists necessary share the same finalities. Various reasons and motivations may justify their interest for dialogue, from both a personal and a collective point of view : shared ques-
96
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
tions, curiosity and epistemic interest, as well as financial, political or social motivations are part of them. Finally, various conceptions of dialogue coexist in the academic field. From interdisciplinarity to multidisciplinarity and pluridisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and multireferentility, the ways of conceiving the relationships between scientific disciplines are heterogenous21. Because such conceptions have a history of shaping the evolution of their understanding, they carry by themselves a justification to dialogue about the ways of dialoguing [Ardoino, 1993 ; Le Moigne, 2001a, 2001b ; Morin, 1997, Nicolescu, 1996, 2005 ; Rege Colet, 1993].
2E¾ECTING ON DIALOGUE AS A CRITICAL PROCESS OF LEARNING As any observation is fundamentally grounded in the position of the observer, it seems important to locate the following ones in regard of my own background. As a researcher and professor working in the field of organizational psychology, adult education and in philosophy of education, my main topic of interest is related to the development of a capacity of critical reflection among adults [Alhadeff, 2003, 2007a], and more specifically, among novices and professional scientists, considered as adult learners. More specifically, I assume the strong necessity for researchers to be able to develop critical skills and knowledge allowing them to reflect on their own work and the practices of their peers as well. Such a position involves an understanding of critique as a complex phenomenon [Alhadeff, 2004, 2005] involving the adoption of a constructivist epistemology [AlhadeffJones, 2006 ; Le Moigne, 2001a]. It fundamentally requires the adoption of a complex way of thinking [Morin, 1990b, 2007] which recursively supposes the consideration of the idea that “critique” is located at the borders between several fields of study (philosophy, psychology, sociology, literature, etc.) [Alhadeff, 2007b]. If such a critical ability involves the capacity of reflecting on one’s own assumptions about oneself and the world [Mezirow, 1991], one has to admit that it supposes a learning process too. Learning to develop a critical understanding can be then perceived as an individual and as a collective process based on knowledge development, as well as personal and organizational development. Considering the specificities of adult learning, enhancing critical reflection among scientists involves the consideration of both their knowledge and their personal life experience [Dominicé, 2000].
21
Nicolescu [Nicolescu, 2005] proposes, for example, the following distinction : “Multidisciplinarity concerns itself with studying a research topic in not just one discipline only, but in several at the same time. Any topic in question will ultimately be enriched by incorporating the perspectives of several disciplines. Multidisciplinarity brings a plus to the discipline in question, but this “plus” is always in the exclusive service of the home discipline. In other words, the multidisciplinary approach overflows disciplinary boundaries while its goal remains limited to the framework of disciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity has a different goal than multidisciplinarity. It concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline to another. Like multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity overflows the disciplines, but its goal still remains within the framework of disciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity has even the capacity of generating new disciplines, like quantum cosmology and chaos theory. Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge” [Nicolescu, 2005 : 5-6].
Promoting Scientific Dialogue as a Lifelong Learning Process
97
0ROMOTING SCIENTI½C DIALOGUE #ONSIDERING DIALOGUE THROUGH HETEROGENEITY FRAGMENTATION AND TRANSFORMATION The position just described brings me to interpret issues related to scientific dialogue through at least three lenses. First, it supposes to question the nature of the epistemic and experiential heterogeneity grounding every situation of dialogue. From an epistemological point of view, it involves the revisiting of how we define the specificity of each scientific discipline [Piaget, 1970] and the fundamental heterogeneity they carry [Ardoino, 1993 ; Habermas, 1976]. From an experiential point of view, it also supposes the recognition of what constitutes the identity of the researchers involved in scientific activities [Dominicé, 2000] and what characterizes their implication in regard of the knowledge produced [Ardoino, 2000 ; Devereux, 1967 /1980 ; Holton, 1978 /1998 ; Morin, 1986, 1991]. It seems critical today to question how scientists are able not only to cross disciplinary borders, but also to challenge the ethical and moral concerns which may or not justify to do so. A second approach supposes then to address the need to decompartmentalize scientific discourses, and to restore some of the philosophical questions associated with their development. Such a perspective would include reflection on the contemporary fragmentation of sciences and their ethical challenges [Morin, 1990a], the risks associated to their own development [Beck, 1986 /2001], the normative dimension they carry [Foucault, 1964] and the risks related to their institutionalization [Illich, 1971] or the limits associated to the rationality which underlies their development [Horkheimer, 1974 ; Lyotard, 1979]. Finally, a third lens would bring the question of the transformational dimension associated with the process of dialogue, considering the people and the institutions involved. Following this perspective, the transformation promoted through dialogue can be interpreted as a learning process [Burbules, 1993] involving, at various levels of organization (individual, group, institution, etc.), instrumental, communicational and emancipatory issues [Mezirow, 1991]. From an instrumental point of view, it identifies the means developed in order to reach the finalities associated with the situation of dialogue. From a communicational perspective, it questions the meanings shared and the values attributed to dialogue. From an emancipatory point of view, it finally suggests the exploration of the assumptions framing and binding the situation of dialogue itself. These three layers appear at this point as a relevant lens to revisit the experience lived during the World Knowledge Forum.
)NSTRUMENTAL COMMUNICATIONAL AND EMANCIPATORY PERSPECTIVES ON DIALOGUE DEVELOPMENT My participation in this first edition of the World Knowledge Dialogue (WKD) has been an opportunity to conduct a kind of “ethnographic” observation, raising questions about science as it is understood and practiced. Following are some questions born from reflections that initially emerged during these three days. Exploring a situation of dialogue from an instrumental point of view brings us to question the “best practices” developed or promoted to build a “good” dialogical environment. As mentioned above, establishing a dialogue suggests conversation, expression, performance, and / or negotiation of knowledge, meanings and values. If dialogue is a conver-
98
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
sation, what are the best ways to settle it ? If it involves self-expression, how do we promote it ? If it supposes a performance, how do we evaluate it ? And if it includes a negotiation, how do we arbitrate it ? From a learning perspective, challenging the instrumental learning involved by a dialogical environment should bring to question what has to be learned in order to share, exchange, give, receive or take knowledge, meanings and values with people whose backgrounds may differ drastically from each other. Following a communicational approach [Mezirow, 1991], questioning the meanings associated with a situation of dialogue raises different issues. How are we defining the “best practices” shaping a situation of dialogue ? What are the standards used to identify when there is, or is not, a “good” dialogue ? How do we define what should be a “good” dialogue among scientists ? If the importance of recognizing “heterogeneity”, favoring “decompartmentalization”, and promoting “transformation” may be acknowledged, are we sure everyone involved puts the same meanings behind these words ? Challenging the communicational learning that underlies a dialogical environment should bring us to question what has to be learned to make sure that we share the same understanding of the vocabulary used, and more broadly the assumptions framing the context of dialogue itself. Exploring the instrumental and communicational dimensions involved by a dialogical situation finally brings us to challenge and question the core assumptions framing our conceptions of “dialogue” (and beyond dialogue, “science” itself). How did we learn to justify and legitimate the forms of dialogue that we are privileging ? How do we know that they are the “right” ones ? Identifying our core assumptions about dialogue supposes to reinterpret our experience as scientists and as human beings. It requires us to take the time to reflect on our own experience and the way we learned to interpret it.
"RIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AND SCIENTISTS SELF DEVELOPMENT AN ±ACADEMIC NO MAN´S LAND² There are many ways to tackle the series of questions raised in the previous sections. On one hand, the scientific field is full of researches highlighting the processes of knowledge production, including its dialogical dimension (philosophy and history of sciences, sciences and technology studies, etc.) [Andler, 2002 ; Dubois, 1999 ; Pestre, 2006]. On the other side, studies in adult education, higher education, psychology and sociology (among others) provide many insights about how adults and researchers develop themselves, individually and collectively [Tennant 1993]. What appears as striking is that in the middle of these two sets of approaches, remains a “no man’s land” of the academic field. Indeed, beyond the general evolution of concepts and technologies, the decontextualized theories of self development, the specificity of scholars career, and the biographies of a handful of famous scientists, what do we know today about the mutual influence between the lifelong development of researchers and the evolution of scientific knowledge ? From an experiential perspective, every day, among the thousands of universities and centers of research worldwide, millions of scientists build up knowledge in the same time they develop their own personal and collective skills. The ability to dialogue (within a team, a department, a faculty, an institution, or with outsiders) is part of such a process. What do we know about these experiences ? How can such experiences be used to understand and improve knowledge production ?
Promoting Scientific Dialogue as a Lifelong Learning Process
99
0ROMOTING DIALOGUE AMONG SCIENTISTS AS A LIFELONG LEARNING OPPORTUNITY During the past 30 years, “lifelong learning” has progressively emerged as a core concept in educational sciences, allowing to describe and to promote new solutions to cope with social changes and the contemporary reconfiguration of adult life [Medel-Añonuevo, 2001]. In many ways the need to promote “dialogue” today in the scientific field can be interpreted as a side effect of the evolution of society and knowledge. Because such social and professional changes affects scientists as well as their practices, it seems relevant to question the way researchers learn to cope with their changing work environment and the new demands of knowledge production. Among others fields of research and practice, adult education provides various resources to deal with the stakes mentioned above. Being informed by these contributions, and based on my participation to the WKD, the next sections propose a set of suggestions allowing to reconsider the process of knowledge and personal development promoted by this forum.
&AVORING HETEROGENEITY As previously suggested, to acknowledge the identitary dimension of doing research (what makes everyone be a singular researcher with his / her own expertise / identity) may help to shape an area of encounter between scientists. In order to help recognize the heterogeneity grounding dialogue between sciences, an optimal balance has to be found between the various cultures and sub-cultures of sciences (disciplines, trends of research, school of thought) represented during the conference and the lectures. For the same reason, national, cultural, linguistic, gender and generational diversity has to be promoted and explicitly recognized during the event.
6ALORIZING FORMAL KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS LIVED EXPERIENCE Because dialogue requires time and space to be developed, enough room has to be provided during the event to facilitate the encounters. Because every researcher (some more than others) may already have experiences related to disciplinary borders crossing, it can be useful to explore them. To do so, we have to recognize that inter-/ multi-/co-/transdisciplinarity can be experienced following a formal way (institutionalized) but also in the daily life, following informal paths. This first edition of WKD has been the opportunity of questioning some institutionalized practices. It may be beneficial to recognize the value of informal experiences of disciplinary borders crossing. This should constitute by itself a possibility of dialogue.
!CKNOWLEDGING THE LEARNING DIMENSION INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF SHARING If we consider talking scientifically about genetics, those best qualified to do so are likely to be experts in genetics (as it has been done, actually). If we consider the aim of developing dialogue among people and promoting inter-/multi-/co-/trans-disciplinary learning, we must also invite experts mastering such a process in order to facilitate it ? Because recognizing scientific heterogeneity is a challenging experience involving learning, it can
100
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
be managed as a learning opportunity. It may be interesting and helpful to consider the participation of practitioners already trained and experienced to facilitate and promote effective dialogue and transformation among participants. From such a perspective, the WKD could be understood as a lifelong learning opportunity targeting a public constituted by humanists.
#ONFRONTING PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE PRODUCED ABOUT SCIENCES Because science is a social field itself, it may be interesting and helpful to consider the participation of researchers working on science as a field of study. Psychologists, sociologists or anthropologists of sciences may represent good professional observers. They may help to develop a reflexive point of view on the process of dialogue promoted by the conference. Finally, from a theoretical and epistemological point of view, various researches have been done on inter-/multi-/co-/trans-disciplinarity as specific methodologies of research. To consider including in the program discussions or lectures made by researchers working on these approaches may help clarify the kind of work promoted and the specificity of the knowledge produced. It may help develop a meta-understanding of the stakes involved.
#ONCLUSIONS The aim of this paper was to reconsider some of the stakes involved in a dialogue between sciences and between scientists, considering it as a complex and critical learning process. Dialogue – as conversation, expression, performance and negotiation – can be conceived following many ways. It carries both an epistemic and an experiential side. It involves simultaneously heterogeneous theories and identities. Because it involves fragmented scientific languages, it also requires a shared vision. But above all, what seems critical to acknowledge is that dialogue is a matter of transformation. And because transformation is also a matter of learning, the promotion of dialogue between sciences should be perceived as a virtuous spiral involving : instrumental learning (to dialogue), communicational learning (what we mean by dialoguing) and emancipatory learning (to challenge our core assumptions about dialogue and sciences). Considering the evolution of sciences as a double process embedded in the production of knowledge and the self-development of researchers brings the question of how to conceive simultaneously the relationships between these two major stakes. From a practical point of view, considering scientific dialogue as a lifelong learning process would finally suggest the management of forums like the WKD as a privileged educational opportunity to be designed following what is known about science as a social practice and about researchers as adult learners. From a personal point of view, participating in the WKD was an enriching experience for at least two reasons. On one hand, it stimulated a personal discovery of scientific fields and cultures with which I was not necessarily familiar. On the other hand, it reinforced my belief in the necessity to build bridges between these fields and those constituting my own scientific background in adult education. Science is not only a process of knowledge construction, it is also a human adventure and a lifelong learning process for those who produce it. It involves organizational and personal dimensions whose recognition
Promoting Scientific Dialogue as a Lifelong Learning Process
101
does not happen automatically. In a period of time, when scientific discoveries tend to be reduced to their instrumental and technological advances, the recognition of the human dimension of knowledge production should not be taken for granted. I wish this kind of encounter would find its position in the larger process of building a new culture of science based on personal and collective learning. By bringing people to share the same humanist values, I wish it would help promote an interpretation of science involving more than just epistemological, theoretical, methodological and technical considerations. I wish it would help to restore an understanding of science that recognizes and values the learning experienced by those who build it, a vision of science rehabilitating the fundamental human nature of knowledge production.
2EFERENCES Alhadeff, M. (2003) “Rethinking Transformative Learning and the concept of ‘Critical Reflection’ through the Paradigm of Complexity”, Paper presented at the 5th International Transformative Learning Conference “Transformative Learning in action : Building bridges across contexts and disciplines”, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University. Alhadeff, M. (2004) “Conjuguer l’hétérogénéité de la critique en sciences de l’éducation : de l’hypocrit(iqu) e à l’hypercritique”, in Arce R. et al. (2004), La pensée critique en éducation, St-Jacques de Compostelle, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 34-46. Alhadeff, M. (2005) “Complexité de la critique et critique de la complexité en formation”, in Clenet J. & Poisson D. (Eds), Complexité de la formation et formation à la complexité, Paris, L’Harmattan, 227-242. Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2007a) Paradoxes de l’accompagnement et (r)éveil d’une pensée critique, in Boutinet J.-P., Denoyel N., Pineau G. & Robin J.-Y., Penser l’accompagnement adulte, Paris, PUF. Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2007b) Education, critique et complexité : modèle et expérience de conception d’une approche multiréférentielle de la critique en Sciences de l’éducation. Doctoral dissertation in Educational sciences, Université de Paris 8, Paris. Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2008) “Three generations of complexity theories : nuances and ambiguities”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 66-82. Andler, D., Fagot-Largeault, A., Saint-Sernin, B., (2002) Philosophie des sciences (Tomes I et II), Paris, Gallimard. Adoino, J. (1993) “L’approche multiréférentielle (plurielle) des situations éducatives et formatives”, Pratiques de Formation/Analyses, 25-26, 15-34. Ardoino J. (2000) Les avatars de l’éducation, Paris, PUF. Beck, U. (1986/2001) La société du risque. Sur la voie d’une autre modernité, Paris, Aubier. Burbules, N. C. (1993) Dialogue in Teaching. Theory and Practice, New York, Teachers College Press. Devereux, G. (1967/1980) De l’angoisse à la méthode dans les sciences du comportement, Paris, Aubier. Dominicé, P. (2000) Learning from our Lives. Using Educational Biographies with Adults, San Francisco, JosseyBass. Dubois, M. (1999) Introduction à la sociologie des sciences, Paris, PUF. Foucault, M. (1964) Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique, Paris, Union Générale d’Éditions. Habermas, J. (1976) Connaissance et intérêt, Paris, Gallimard. Holton, G. (1978/1998) The Scientific Imagination, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Horkheimer, M. (1974) Théorie traditionnelle et théorie critique, Paris, Gallimard. Illich I. (1971) Une société sans école, Paris, Seuil. Le Grand, J.-L. (2004) “Quelle anthropologie en formation d’adultes ? Essai de topographie d’un champ de recherché”, Pratiques de Formation/Analyses, 47-48, 9-42. Le Moigne, J.-L. (2001a) Le constructivisme. Les enracinements, (tome I), Paris, L’Harmattan. Le Moigne, J.-L. (2001b) Le constructivisme. Epistémologie de l’interdisciplinarité, (tome II), Paris, L’Harmattan. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979) La condition postmoderne, Paris, Éditions de Minuit.
102
Complexity and Knowledge Dialogue in Discussion
Medel-Anonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., Mauch, W. (2001) Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century, Hambourg, UNESCO Institute for Education. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Morin, E. (1986) La Méthode (vol.3) : La Connaissance de la Connaissance, Paris, Seuil. Morin, E. (1990a) Science avec conscience, Paris, Fayard. Morin, E. (1990b) Introduction à la pensée complexe, Paris, ESF. Morin, E. (1991) La Méthode (vol.4) : Les Idées. Leur habitat, leur vie, leurs moeurs, leur organisation, Paris, Seuil. Morin, E. (1997) “Sur la transdisciplinarité”, La Revue du M.A.U.S.S., 10, 21-29. Morin, E. (2007) “Restricted Complexity, General Complexity”, in Gershenson C., Aerts D. & Edmonds B. (Eds), Worldviews, Science and Us, London, World Scientific, 5-29. Nicolescu, B. (1996) La Transdisciplinarité. Manifeste, Monaco, Editions du Rocher. Nicolescu, B. (2005) “Transdisciplinarity – Past, Present and Future”, Paper presented at the Second World Congress of Transdisciplinarity : “What Education for Sustainable Development ? Attitude - Research – Action”, Vitória/Vila Velha (Brazil). Pestre, D. (2006) Introduction aux Sciences Studies, Paris, La Découverte. Piaget, J. (1970) Epistémologie des sciences de l’homme, Paris, Gallimard. Rege Colet, N. (1993) “Pluridisciplinarité, interdisciplinarité, transdisciplinarité : Quelles perspectives en éducation ? Etude du discours des professeurs des Sciences de l’Education de l’Université de Genève”, Cahiers de la Section des Sciences de l’Education 71, Genève, Université de Genève. Rey, A. (Ed.) (2000) Le Robert, Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert. Simpson, J. et al. (Eds) (1989) Oxford English Dictionary Online (2nd ed.), Electronic resource, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Tennant, M. (1993) “Perspective Transformation and Adult Development”, Adult Education Quarterly, 44(11), 34-42.
#HAPTER /RIGIN AND -IGRATIONS OF -ODERN (UMANS 0ALAEONTOLOGY !NTHROPOLOGY 'ENETICS AND ,INGUISTICS IN $IALOGUE
(UMAN -IGRATIONS IN 0REHISTORY ¯ THE #ULTURAL 2ECORD Summary by Moira Cockell of the presentation by Ofer Bar-Yosef
Professor Bar-Yosef develops the theme of archaeology of human migrations as a vehicle to address the wider epistemological question of “how do we know what we know ?” He describes some of the major inferences that can be drawn, and explains the variety of approaches that are currently used, in exploring the trajectory of humankind’s colonization of the planet. Along the way, he points out specific examples of how the different methodologies and analytical tools available to “state of the art” paleoanthropology complement each other ; sometimes reinforcing a hypothesis and sometimes revealing where there are weaknesses, ambiguities or gaps in our current understanding.
-ULTIPLE WAVES The earliest traces of hominin colonization locate humankind’s ancestors to a part of the East African continent at around 2.5 million years ago. The first of several major, temporally separate transmigrations of early hominid species appears to have occurred between 500,000 years and 1 million years later. We can no longer tell whether such distinct mass migration events were prompted by pressure to escape zoonotic diseases, occurred in response to other selective pressures or were the outcome of incidental attraction to new areas. However by tracing the geographic trajectories of cultural signatures such as toolmaking capacity, we can still deduce the dispersal routes that such migrations followed and posit how the paths of different cultural migrations may have intersected. Such deductions are based on the principal that guided, learned behaviors such as tool making are transmitted from one individual to another. As a consequence, migrating groups of individuals tend to leave similar cultural traces both in their homeland and in their new environment. The stone tools found in the Tabun cave layers suggest that certain characteristic tool making techniques have been stably transmitted through individual
106
Origin and Migrations of Modern Humans
populations for periods approaching 40,000 years. Thus archeological evidence of stone tools with similar characteristics is a strong indicator of the geographic trajectory taken by past migration events. Nevertheless, by its nature, the reconstruction of prehistoric events from archaeological evidence is usually based on serendipitous findings that form only a partial picture, allowing us to reasonably dismiss certain hypotheses, and favor the likelihood of others.
'AP RESOLUTION Some of the gaps that remain in our current view of the chronology of events leading to the colonization of different parts of the world by modern man should be resolvable by applying molecular and genetic techniques to distinguish between certain hypotheses. For instance although both molecular genetic evidence and fossil records support the idea that prehistoric hominid species living in the Levantine had ancestors that came from Ethiopia, it is still unclear whether these Archaic modern humans came out of Africa closer to 220,000 or 130,000 years ago. Archeological studies of multiple sites around the Mount Karmel region have used multiple indicators such as intentional burial behaviors, decorative use of seashells and use of red ochre, to discern trends in the geographic and temporal trajectories of the different hominid species that have inhabited the area. Such studies indicate that Archaic modern man certainly inhabited the Levantine between approximately 140,000 and 90,000 years ago, but was subsequently displaced some 80,000 years ago by a new wave of migrating Neanderthal species who populated the entire near east for at least 20,000 years and eventually spread as far as central and northern Asia. Archaeological techniques also indicate that approximately 50,000 years ago, another migratory event, known to archaeologists as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, occurred. Around this period, Modern humans migrated through the Levant and possibly through the Arabian Peninsula, into Eurasia and Australia. A controversy still remains over where these Modern humans originated. One proposal based on comparison of stone tool characteristics suggests that their origins were in South Africa. This hypothesis is somewhat at odds with paleogenetic data and others favor the alternative view that the ancestors of Modern humans came rather from regions of the Nile valley and possibly parts of East Africa.
#ONTEXT DEPENDENCY It cannot be over-emphasized how much the deductions that archaeologists make from the cultural signatures of artifacts of learned behavior must always be assessed in the larger context defined by any other archaeological and paleoarchaeological clues that are available. As an example, it would be valid to assume a priori, that any particular group of the stone tool sets recovered from excavations of the mount Karmel regions might have been the cultural forerunners of Modern man’s stone tools. Only the knowledge that Archaic modern man was superceded in his Levantine habitats by a genetically separate species, that later became extinct, allows one to conclude that none of the tools found in the lower
Human Migrations in Prehistory – the Cultural Record
107
layers of the Tabun caves can be the prototypes for those fabricated by Modern man in the same geographical locations during the Upper Paleolithic era. As Modern humans progressed from the Levant towards the West, the Neanderthal populations were split and forced to retreat both towards northern Europe and southwards towards the Mediterranean. The existence of remaining outgroups of these branches of the Neanderthals’ descendants in both Gibraltar and in the Crimea can be dated back to between 24,000 years and 28,000 years from the present day. However the displacement of the Neanderthals from the central part of Europe probably did not take longer than a couple of thousand years at most. After the splitting of the Neanderthal territories of Central Europe, the species’ ultimate extinction is presumed to have come about as a consequence of reduced population size, competition for resources and possible physical conflicts with their rivals. While a low level of interbreeding between the Neanderthal and Modern human species might have occurred, it is unlikely ever to be genetically verifiable.
!RTIFACTS There is a higher risk of misinterpreting data obtained at the geographical boundaries of contemporary populations of Neanderthals and Modern man since archeological discoveries may easily become mixed. In one example of this, it has been widely reported in both the media and in learned archaeological texts that a group of late Neanderthals in central France had developed uncharacteristically complex tool-making techniques that are more reminiscent of Modern man’s capacities. Given the absence of continuity of such finds over a substantial temporal or geographical span, it seems much more plausible that the so-called Chatelperronian tools found in the region were actually made by a community of Modern humans. However the group probably lived in sites that had been recently populated by late Neanderthals such that the traces of both species became intermingled. Radiocarbon and thermo luminescence dating of materials excavated in layers from two cave sites in the Southern Caucasus are consistent with the model that the region was one of the later enclaves of the Neanderthals, while Modern humans seem to have arrived there some 35,000 years ago, having first entered Europe some 20,000 years earlier via a route that traversed Bulgaria and progressed west along the Danube.
.O ±TIME MACHINE² Expert archaeologists have by no means reached a consensus opinion about all of the major trajectories of hominid migrations. This should serve to illustrate the often-subjective nature of archaeological interpretation and remind us that archaeological reconstructions remain models rather than facts in either the scientific or the philosophical sense of the word. As such they must always remain open to revision in the light of new evidence. Among the currently most-topical areas of controversy, a trajectory for the colonization of Australia via the southern tip of India has been suggested. It is largely based on similarities between stone tool sets recovered from archaeological sites in Africa and India. Carbon dating of tool sets, dates the origins of those recovered from South Africa to approximately 60,000 years ago and those from India to 35,000 years ago. However the relevance of their
108
Origin and Migrations of Modern Humans
similarities to the construction of a dispersal route model for Australian colonization is eliminated by other reliable data placing the colonization of Australia to around 45,000 years ago.
$IFFERENT ROUTES TO THE SAME PLACE In a similar vein, until very recently the generally favored model for colonization of the Americas has been that it occurred via a dispersal route that progressed from Siberia to Alaska and then proceeded southwards into Southern California and Northern Mexico. This model is now challenged by the recent discovery that contemporary species of American squash plants are of Asian origin and not as previously thought, African. One implication of the new discovery is that the peoples who originally colonized Northern Mexico and imported the first squash seeds must have reached there by boats and not by land. Thus, the possibility arises that our ancestors in different parts of Asia were able to build sea-craft that allowed them to colonize the Americas from the south. In conclusion, given sufficient time and careful fieldwork, the dispersal routes of humans can be traced archaeologically. However, when genetic evidence is available or readily obtainable it should motivate archaeologists to enhance fieldwork, improve dating and speed publication of their findings.
2EFERENCES Bar-Yosef, O. (1998) “On the Nature of Transitions : the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(2), 141-163. Bar-Yosef, O. (1999) “Lower Paleolithic Sites in South-Western Asia - Evidence for “Out of Africa” Movements”, Anthropologie, XXXVII(1), 51-69. Bar-Yosef, O. (2000) “The Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in southwest Asia and neighboring regions. The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean”, (Ed.) BarYosef O. and Pilbeam D., Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Bulletin No. 8, 107-156. Bar-Yosef, O. (2001) “Dating the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic”, Datation : Actes des Rencontres 19-20-21 Octobre 2000, Barrandon J.-N., Guibert P.and Michel V., Antibes, Association pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissances Archéologiques (APDCA), 279-293. Bar-Yosef, O. (2002) “The Upper Paleolithic revolution”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363-393. Bar-Yosef, O. (2003) “Away from home : prehistoric colonizations, exchanges and diffusions in the mediterranean basin”, Échanges et diffusion dans la préhistoire Méditerraneenne, B. Vandermeersch, Paris, CTHS : 71-82. Bar-Yosef, O. (2006) “Neanderthals and Modern Humans : A Different Interpretation”, When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met, N. J. Conard, Rottenburg, Tübingen Publications, Kerns Verlag : 467-482. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. (2001) “From Africa to Eurasia – early dispersals”, Quaternary International 75, 19-28. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M. et al. (1999) “Out of Africa : the dispersal of the earliest technical systems reconsidered”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 18(2), 119-136. Conard, N. J., Bolus, M. (2003) “Radiocarbon dating and the appearance of modern humans and the timing of cultural innovation in Europe : new results and new challenges”, Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331-371. Forster, P. (2004) “Ice ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dispersals : a review”, Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 359, 255-264.
Human Migrations in Prehistory – the Cultural Record
109
Kuhn, S. L., Brantingham, P. J. et al. (2004) “The Early Paleolithic and the Origins of Modern Human Behavior”, The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe, Brantingham P. J., Kuhn S. L. and Kerry K. W., Berkeley, University of California Press, 242-248. Mellars, P. (2006) “Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago ? A new model”, PNAS 103(25), 9381-9386. O’Connell, J. F. and Allen, J. (2004) “Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea) : a review of recent research”, Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 835-853. Petraglia, A. M. D. (2003) “The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula : Occupations, Adaptations, and Dispersals”, Journal of World Prehistory 17(2), 141-179. Villa, P. (2001) “Early Italy and the colonization of Western Europe”, Quaternary International 75 (Out of Africa in the Pleistocene, Straus, L. G. and O. Bar-Yosef, editors), 113-130.
4HE /RIGINS OF -ODERN (UMANS ,INGUISTIC )SSUES Summary by Moira Cockell of the presentation by Bernard Victorri
What can today’s languages tell us about early human migrations ? How does the science of linguistics contribute to the comprehension of human origins ? What is its potential to advance our understanding of these issues further and what are its limitations ? What are the foreseeable areas where collaboration between linguists and other domains should yield synergistic advances in our knowledge ? Bernard Victorri responds to these questions with yet others : when did our ancestors start speaking and why ? Do all human languages originate from a unique “mother tongue”, or from several independent sources ? Did the introduction of language precede the development of human rational thought or was it the other way round ? These are questions that the analytical methods and tools of historical linguistics alone have not the power to answer, but which might be amenable to comparative methods. He describes how constructing a genealogy of modern languages permits us, in some sense, to go back in time and reconstruct the common ancestor from which all the languages of a family derive. While the accessible time-depths are still too short to address the issue of the origin of language, when they are employed in conjunction with population genetics and archaeology, such studies play an important part in tracing back the history of early migrations of modern humans.
,ANGUAGE IS DYNAMIC The present extent of language diversity is such that linguists define around 5000 different spoken languages that are in current use around the world. Other languages have certainly come and gone, leaving little or no written evidence of their past existence. Many of the
The Origins of Modern Humans : Linguistic Issues
111
languages in practice today are in the process of extinction. Yet others have undergone recent periods of rapid expansion. It is this dynamic repertoire that provides the raw material that linguists examine for evidence of relationships. Linguistic method involves a reiterative process of applying criteria that permits different languages to be assembled into families and hierarchical groupings. Systematic description of the similarities and differences between modern languages allows linguistics to reconstruct a picture of the evolutionary trajectories that they have followed.
4REE DIAGRAMS In principal, if all of the past steps in language differentiation were equally traceable, it would be possible to reconstruct a faithful tree diagram of how different languages have branched from common origins regressing as far back in time as the scale of human culture itself. In practice, both the number of iterations and the time span over which we can reconstruct the language evolution process is small and the accuracy of our conjectures diminishes with each individual step of the process. The present day state of the art allows us to reconstruct a few of the major trajectories of language evolution with good probability of accuracy over a period of some 6,000 years. However, much language data is still anecdotal and not widely available to broad study, thus adoption of modern techniques to aid collection and systematic analysis of data is soon likely to considerably extend and refine the historical picture of modern language evolution. Nevertheless even the most optimistic estimates suggest that linguistic techniques alone will be unable to retrace the main branches of language divergence beyond roughly 10,000-15,000 years. How do we set about assembling groups of languages ? The first step is based on the relatively simple observation that many different languages employ vocabularies of words (cognates) with similar sounds and meanings that share fairly obvious common origins. The technique of identifying and classifying cognates allows to assign the entire repertoire of modern languages to a few hundred different proto-languages and to follow the history of language evolution over a time span of around three thousand years. Even within this first hierarchical level of groupings, not all rules of language are conserved among individual families ; the lack of common rules for grammatical declension among the modern languages of Latin origin is one example of this. This type of language comparison reveals information about the dynamics of language spread. It can indicate which languages are falling out of use and which are currently enjoying success. We can deduce for instance from the large number of different modern languages in the Bantu family, that within the last 2,000 years, proto-Bantu speakers underwent a large and rapid expansion across the southern half of the African continent. In another example of expansion, the Malayo-Polynesian family constitutes more than 1,000 distinct present day languages spoken across an area extending from Madagascar to Hawaii and New Zealand. Simple logic suggests that such a spectacularly rapid geographical spread of its speakers must have occurred by migration using sea and costal navigation routes and indeed cultural records suggesting that these island peoples have a particularly strong seafaring history are consistent with the same hypothesis.
112
Origin and Migrations of Modern Humans
0ROTOLANGUAGE The second less trivial step of assembling protolanguage families into larger subgroups attempts to unravel more ancient language relationships by comparing a battery of sophisticated linguistic machineries such as syntactic structures, polysemy and indicators of temporal and spatial concepts. This type of operation presently extends the time-span over which the trends of language evolution can be reconstituted to around 6,000 years or so. It was first successfully used in the 19th century to demonstrate the common origins of the so-called Indo-European languages, which are spoken today across much of Europe and Asia. By the same criteria that assign the Indo-European languages to a single common progenitor or proto-language, the so-called Finno-Ugric languages of Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian are deemed to constitute a separate group with shared origins, In contrast, the modern Basque language of Northern Spain is unrelated to any other known language and is presumed to be the last remaining trace of a group that has otherwise become obsolete. Analyses of distantly related language groups allow us to make inferences about the migrations of the peoples who spoke the proto-languages from which the modern versions are descended. For instance, it is clear that a larger group of languages on the African continent is loosely related to the proto-Bantu family. This group (the Niger-Congo languages) extends over a wider area of South Africa, but interestingly, bears no relationship to a second, smaller group (the Khoisan languages) that is prevalent in sporadic discrete locations distributed throughout the same geographical area. Reconstructions of the trajectory of the spread of the Niger-Congo languages, suggest that the Khoisan speaking populations were pushed south towards the Kalahari Desert and surrounding areas by migrating populations originating from the direction of West Africa. Similarly, the observations that nine other language families are loosely related to the Malayo-Polynesian languages, and that all are found exclusively in the region of Taiwan, strongly suggests that the peoples who spoke the prototype language of this group (proto-Austronesian) were indigenous to Taiwan for many thousands of years before a single branch of them took to the sea in search of new habitats. Models of the trajectory of the spread of the MalayoPolynesian branch of the Austronesian languages, suggest that it began spreading from Taiwan approximately 6,000 years ago and took until about 2,000 years ago to reach the island of Madagascar. These few examples illustrate that linguistics provides us with sufficient information to formulate robust models of how languages have spread over large geographical areas. Such data can reasonably be incorporated into models of human migrations based on other investigative techniques such as archaeology and genetics. In combination, models based on different techniques impose enormous constraints on each other. As a minimum we must try to ensure that models with overlapping timeframes are not inconsistent and if they appear so we should be prepared to re-examine the data from all sides. We should also bear in mind, that while the transmission of language, stone tool making and genetic sequences, all leave temporal and geographical traces of human activity, the rules and constraints that apply to the passage of each are not the same. It is precisely this characteristic that ensures they are not simply three redundant approaches to the same question and that their combined value is greater than the sum of their parts.
The Origins of Modern Humans : Linguistic Issues
113
,IMITS How far back can the trajectories of language evolution be traced ? It seems plausible to envisage that a third iterative step will become practical and will yield new insights as the current technological revolution in data collection methods bring quantitative and qualitative improvements to the second ? The limitations of the timeframe to which it can be applied, suggest nevertheless that historical linguistics cannot bring evidence to bear on the specific question of the geographical origins of humankind, However, although it is unrealistic to expect that linguistics can identify the universal mother tongue or progenitor of all human language, it can lead us to propose hypotheses for why human language communication evolved to become so complex. We can speculate that the emergence of concepts such as argumentation and narration, which are thought to be unique to human communication, may actually define fundamental precepts of human cultural and societal development.
2EFERENCES Bellwood, P., Fox J. J., Tryon D. (1995) The Austronesians : Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Australian National University, Canberra. Cavalli-Sforza, L. (1996) Gènes, peuples et langues, Odile Jacob, Paris. Dessalles, J. L., Picq P., Victorri B. (2006) Les origines du langage, Editions du Pommier, Paris. Dixon, R. M. W. (1997) The Rise and Fall of Languages, Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Heine, B., Nurse, D. (Ed.) (2000) African Languages : an Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hombert, J. M. (Ed.) (2005) Aux origines des langues et du langage, Fayard, Paris. Johansson, S. (2005) Origins of Language, Constraints on Hypotheses, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Lass, R. (1997) Historical Linguistics and Language Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mallory, J. P. (1989) In Search of Indo-Europeans : Language, Archaeology, and Myth, Thames and Hudson, London. Nettle, D. (2002) Linguistic Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nichols, J. (1992) Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Renfrew, C. (1988) Archaeology and Language : the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Renfrew, C., McMahon, A., Trask, L. (Eds) (2000) Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ruhlen, M. (1994) The Origin of Language : Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue, John Wiley & Sons. Trask, R. L. (1996) Historical Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
! 'ENETIC 6IEW OF (UMAN /RIGINS Summary by Moira Cockell of the presentation by Svante Pääbo
The advent of new molecular genetic tools means that the “big” questions of how we humans came to be and how we differ from the species that are our closest living relatives, can now be addressed more powerfully than ever before. Just as human culture has left us clues as to its geographical and temporal trajectory in our present environment, the genetic makeup of modern day humans bears the trace of its evolutionary path. In the same way that linguistics and archaeology attempt to reconstruct the lineage of our cultural history, the science of comparative genomics attempts to reconstruct our ancestral pedigree by interpreting the clues that lie within our own DNA. There are several broad questions about our genetic history for which we are able today to provide clear answers. We now have the potential to address from a genetic standpoint, what distinguishes the human species from other animals and accounts for its phenomenal success to date, in adapting to and exploiting its environment. The complete genomes of humans and chimpanzees are in hand, with other primate species to follow. Equally exciting are the proliferation of studies of gene expression, which examine how the genetic code is employed differently in various tissues and species.
2ECONSTRUCTING OUR ANCESTRAL PEDIGREE Genetic studies have established that our closest relatives among other living organisms are to be found among the great ape families of Africa. They reveal that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor who lived some 4 to 7 million years ago, while humans and gorillas shared a common ancestor who lived some 6 to 8 million years ago. The sequencing of the complete human genome has established that we each have over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code stored in our chromosomes. By aligning and comparing
A Genetic View of Human Origins
115
the exact DNA codes within the same small portion of the individual genomes of a large number of randomly selected people inhabiting different geographical locations on the planet, we can obtain a representative measure of genetic variance within the contemporary human population. Comparison with similar data collected from apes then allows us to estimate how the amount of variation between individuals of one species compares to another. One thing such studies tell us is that the level of genetic variation among humans is remarkably small compared to that observed among members of the world’s chimpanzee, gorilla or other great ape populations. A randomly selected pair of human genomes is approximately two to four times more closely related than a randomly selected pair of chimpanzees, despite the much more widespread distribution and vastly greater size of the human population as compared with chimpanzees and other apes. The finding is an indication that constraints on human evolution have been quite different from those that applied to the genetic history of our animal relatives.
±/UT OF !FRICA² Further analyses of human genetic variation illustrates another important point ; although we may discern the geographical antecedents of an individual person with relative ease, we cannot deduce from this information which genetic variants he or she will carry in any particular part of the genome. The broad patterns of genetic variation among humans suggest that all contemporary humans are rather recent descendants of African populations. In order to progress further in understanding the genetic underpinnings that make human beings unique, a crucial issue is how we define what constitutes a human-specific trait. A number of traits that appear superficially defining for humanity are still too vaguely defined to be amenable to genetic studies. In fact, closer inspection has taught us that many of the traits that have traditionally been invoked to put humans on a pedestal and differentiate them from other species, actually reflect quantitative rather than qualitative differences. It has only recently become clear that tool use, cultural evolution and the rudiments of language, are phenomena that also exist in chimpanzees and other apes. The need to define more rigorously whether there exist any genuinely qualitatively humanspecific traits, is an area where input from diverse disciplines such as animal behaviorists, comparative psychologists, linguists, would now be extremely valuable. The comparative analysis of genomes and gene function in humans and the great apes allows us to directly see mutations in the genetic code, and identify which of them may have led to important differences in gene activity. The results acquired so far indicate that gene activity in the the male germ line has been the target of much positive selection in both human and chimpanzee ancestors. There are also more subtle indications of positive selection in the brain, but only in humans and not in chimpanzees. Comparative expression studies within different tissues of a single organism should in future be helpful to understand how genetic changes affect functional aspects of gene regulation ; What genes are turned on and off ? ; When and where are they expressed in our bodies ? ; How are their individual expression patterns coordinated with each other ?
116
Origin and Migrations of Modern Humans
4HE GENETIC BASIS OF HUMAN SPECI½C TRAITS In the meantime a few genes do qualify as good candidates for being involved in humanspecific traits. Studies of the genetic changes associated with the evolution of one such gene called FOXP2, illustrate some of the challenges that face comparative genetics today. It has emerged from medical studies, that FOXP2 is somehow involved in language articulation. The presence of a characteristic set of heritable language defects in some humans of correlates with the presence in their DNA of mutations that specifically inactivate this gene. However as FOXP2 also controls the expression of many other genes, we are still far from understanding the molecular basis for its influence on language articulation. Interestingly, the overall sequence and structure of the protein encoded by FOXP2 has been maintained over a very long period during evolution, indicating that its functions are not uniquely associated with language. Nevertheless, several alterations to a particular part of its sequence show clear evidence of having undergone recent positive selection. Based on the studies available, it is plausible that the differences between the human and ape sequences allowed better coordination of the oropharynx muscles, thus increasing the repertoire of distinguishable noises that could be generated. Ethical considerations clearly prevent our testing this hypothesis by attempting to generate the reverse changes in humans, however several other investigative approaches might be considered. If sufficient sequencing resources ever became available, one could hope to identify naturally occurring back-mutations in the human population and ask whether their presence also correlates with any language-related phenotype. The use of animal models to investigate whether genetically engineered introduction of the same alteration to the DNA sequence gives rise to any characterizable change in the animal, might constitute an ethically tolerable alternative approach. However, an obvious limitation is given by the fact that modifications in FOX2P are hypothesized to have influenced “late” events in the human evolutionary trajectory. Pääbo’s group have shown that FOX2P was the target of positive selection that most probably occurred during the last 250,000 years, i.e., much later for instance, than the divergence between anatomically modern humans and the Neanderthals. This is compatible with the idea that articulate language was a trait that distinguished modern humans and Neanderthals. Thus, recreation of the human FOXP2 sequence in a mouse or other small mammal, could well have no discernable effect, simply because such species probably lack other evolutionary changes in the molecular machinery that acts in concert with FOXP2.
.EANDERTHAL GENOMES Some might argue that all the most interesting genetic changes in our genomes are likely to have occurred in the relatively recent past. Recent advances in the ability to study ancient DNA, promise to revolutionize humankind’s capacity to identify genetic changes that have characterized the latest stages of its evolutionary trajectory. In the last decade, Pääbo’s group has developed techniques for the retrieval of DNA from archaeological and paleontological remains. They have used them to study the genetic makeup of the Neanderthals ; the more archaic form of hominin species that archaeological records show to have peopled Western Asia and Europe before modern humans migrated from Africa.
A Genetic View of Human Origins
117
Comparative analyses of the mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthal bones recovered from different archaeological excavation sites in Europe and western Asia suggest that the Neanderthals diverged from the ancestors of modern humans about half a million years ago. Together with other findings, they support a scenario in which modern humans originated from small African populations that colonized the rest of the world rather recently. There appears to have been no substantial mixing of their gene pool with the resident archaic humans who were their evolutionary contemporaries. With state of the art techniques, it now appears a feasible task to obtain a rough draft of the complete Neanderthal genome sequence from particularly well-preserved bone that is essentially free of contamination by human DNA. This tool should in principal allow to identify regions of the human genome where recent positive selection has taken place and thus furnish us with candidate genes that may influenced humanity’s most recently evolved features.
2EFERENCES Enard, W., Khaitovich, P., Klose, J., Zöllner, S., Heissig, F., Giavalisco, P., Nieselt-Struwe, K., Muchmore, E., Varki, A., Ravid, R., Doxiadis, G.M., Bontrop, R.E., and Pääbo, S. (2002) “Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns”, Science 296, 340-343. Enard, W., Przeworski, M., Fisher, S.E., Lai, C.S.L., Wiebe, V., Kitano T., Monaco, A.P., and Pääbo, S. (2002) “Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language”, Nature 418, 869-872. Enard, W. and Pääbo, S. (2004) “Comparative primate genomics”, Ann. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 5, 351-78. Green, R.E., Krause, J., Ptak, S.E., Briggs, A.W., Ronan, M.T., Simons, J.F., Du L., Egholm, M., Rothberg, J.M., Paunovic, M. Pääbo S. (2006) “Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA”, Nature 444, 330-36. Kaessmann, H., Wiebe, V., and Pääbo, S. (1999) “Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees”, Science 286, 1159-1162. Khaitovich, P., Hellmann, I., Enard, W., Nowick, K., Leinweber, M., Franz, H., Weiss, G., Lachmann, M., Pääbo S. (2005) “Parallel patterns of evolution in the genomes and transcriptomes of humans and chimpanzees”, Science 209, 1850-1854. Khaitovich, P., Enard, W., Lachmann, M. Pääbo, S. (2006) Evolution of primate gene expression”, Nature Reviews Genetics 7, 693-702. Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., and Pääbo S. (1997) “Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans”, Cell 90, 19-30. Pääbo, S. (1989) “Ancient DNA ; extraction, characterization, molecular cloning and enzymatic amplification”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 1939-1943. Pääbo, S., Poinar, H., Serre, D., Jaenicke-Després, V., Hebler, J., Rohland, N., Kuch, M., Krause, J., Vigilant, L., and Hofreiter, M. (2004) “Genetic analyses from ancient DNA”, Ann. Rev. Genetics 38, 645-79.
#HAPTER +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE !CADEMIC )NSTITUTIONAL 'OVERNANCE %DUCATION AND %XPERIENCES
3OCIETAL 2ESPONSIBILITY OF 5NIVERSITIES 7ISDOM AND &ORESIGHT ,EADING TO A "ETTER 7ORLD by Richard R. Ernst
The essay summarizes this author’s view on the role and responsibility of universities and researchers in a world taking a course that all too often deviates from a beneficial, sustainable direction. In many respects, we are living today shortsightedly on the account of future generations. In this situation, universities carry a heavy load of responsibility, bearing in mind that they educate the citizens of tomorrow, especially the political, economic, and spiritual key leaders. The independence of academic teachers gives them the liberty to express their views freely and honestly in the hope of influencing the long-term societal development. Scientific explorations of the foundations of nature are important for gaining further knowledge to address urgent issues of our common future. However, in addition, we academics are obliged to develop wisdom for comprehending the transdisciplinary and trans-cultural connections that provide clues for solving major pending problems. An overarching view may help us to conceive innovative societal models and to find possible avenues that will lead towards sustainable prosperity and human dignity for all citizens on our globe. What shortsightedness and overestimation of ourselves to believe that the world has been created just for the sake of man ; and that our obligations are restricted to picking and enjoying the fruits, and to multiply ! What arrogance to claim that we are the crown of creation ! Such a conclusion could perhaps be drawn from Moses 1 :28 and 1 :29 : “Be fertile and become many. Fill the land and conquer it. Dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every beast that walks the land. Behold, I have given you every seed bearing plant on the face of the earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit. It shall be to you for food”. These words had been written more than 3000 years before the limits of growth became frightfully apparent. It does not take much foresight to predict a finite lifetime of human civilization, provided we continue our present lifestyle and are not willing to make major concessions for preserving our living grounds. Soon, fossil energy will be gone ; soon, the oceans will be devoid of any eatable fish ; soon, the water level in many counties
122
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
will be too low to pump out sufficient drinking water or even water for irrigation ; soon, the fertility of the over-exploited fields will start to decrease at a dangerous rate ; soon, the man-made climate change will be too rapid and radical to permit us to take proper remedies ; soon, antibiotics needed to prevent epidemics become ineffective ; soon, the gap between the rich and the poor will become sufficiently large to lead to unrest on a global scale. A truly doomsday scenario is inevitable unless we drastically change our attitudes ! Changes are needed in our educational endeavors as outlined in Part 1, as well as in the relations of the university to society as discussed in Part 2.
7ISDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY IN ACADEMIC EDUCATION In spite of all our precious genes, we are born in a rather helpless state. We need a great deal of love, care, and of education in order to become viable members of human society. Our inborn instincts are not sufficient for survival and for contributing our share to the survival of mankind. Twenty and more years are needed for trimming ourselves for social integration, for reducing our inborn egoism, and for developing compassion, mutual understanding, and responsibility. Few societal issues receive wider public agreement than the need for first class education within our schools and universities. Indeed, it is likely that the level of education worldwide will determine the ultimate fate of mankind and of the global environment. We often use the term “Knowledge Society” to emphasize the importance of knowledge for success in business and in life. Those who know more are expected to accomplish more and to earn more and in the end, they are expected to live a happier life than the rest – this is true, to some extent, but is “knowledge” alone really sufficient ? In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (WWWWIKIPEDIAORG), we read : “Knowledge is information of which a person, organization or other entity is aware. Knowledge is gained either by experience, learning and perception, or through association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose. The unreliability ofmemory limits the certainty of knowledge about the past, while unpredictability of events yet to occur limits the certainty of knowledge about the future. Epistemology is the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge”. Knowledge is gained from experiments and measurements, followed by data processing and data reduction. Knowledge is ‘known information’. It fills heads, books, and computer memories, and can be retrieved by sophisticated information retrieval systems. However, the ultimate goal is not the collection of knowledge or facts but attaining, what we may call, “wisdom”. Wisdom characterizes a state of comprehensive humanness. In its evasiveness, it is much harder to comprehend than knowledge. It cannot easily be measured nor quantified. In Wikipedia we find the following definition : “Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment. It is sometimes conceptualized as an especially well developed form of common sense. Most psychologists regard wisdom as distinct from the cognitive abilities measured by standardized intelligence tests. Wisdom is often considered to be a trait that can be developed by experience, but not taught. When applied to practical matters, the term wisdom is synonymous with prudence. The status of wisdom or prudence as a virtue
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
123
is recognized in cultural, philosophical and religious sources. Some define wisdom in a utilitarian sense, as foreseeing consequences and acting to maximize the long-term common good”. Wisdom is, so to say, the ultimate distillate of lifelong experience. Wisdom might be found in immortal books, wisdom might be transferred from great teachers to students ; but without personal experience, true wisdom cannot develop nor will it last. Wisdom has much to do with a broad view, with the comprehension of connectivity. Wisdom does not brag, it does not serve personal advantages, and it will never lead to exploiting others. Wisdom is accompanied by modesty, truthfulness, and farsightedness. The term wisdom is often used in combination with compassion. In fact, the two terms can hardly be separated. Both have the same goal : living in harmony with the environment and contributing actively to the wellbeing of others. Compassion comprises the emotional aspects, such as love and pity, while wisdom results from a deep understanding with a strong intellectual component. Knowledge is indispensable for reaching wisdom and for exerting compassion, but it is operative on a different, more supportive level. It acts like inorganic soil, like a fertilizing agent on which life in the form of plants, animals, and tenderhearted beings can subsist. But its neutrality may also allow weed and deadly bacteria to grow. An obvious example is the knowledge on nuclear power that can be used for peaceful and for destructive purposes. Knowledge does not establish a matching pair together with compassion.
4HE FUNCTION OF SCHOOLS The preceding remarks define also the ultimate goals of our schools and universities. They carry the ambition to convey more than just knowledge in the form of facts that fill notebooks and heads. The goal is to render the students fit for life, hopefully for a happy and rewarding life. We know that intelligence, brainpower, and factual knowledge are insufficient for acting as a human being. It is evident that knowledge must be supplemented by years of personal experience, by inter-human relations, by joy and suffering. One might argue that such experience can not be gained in formal schooling, and that schools may safely restrict their function to providing knowledge and skills, in other words, to the training of well qualified professionals, leaving the human development of the students to their own initiative outside of the school. Indeed, this attitude is being pursued all too often at universities by educating specialists who know an incredible amount of details about a very narrow subject. Encyclopedic knowledge seems to be indispensable in many professions, particularly in the scientific world, if one wants to succeed and to advance to the front line where the current innovations take place. I would like to argue differently : Life is too short and too precious that one can afford to spend preparatory twenty or even twenty five years in school, just memorizing facts and recipes, in the hope that they can once, in the future, be applied fruitfully to “real life”. We like to use the metaphor of stuffing a backpack with knowledge for life, but often the contents will become outdated or irrelevant much before an occasion arises for their profitable application. I prefer schools with a lively community of students and teachers working on real problems and acquiring lasting experiences invaluable for life. Experience cannot be gained without doing experiments. “Trial and error” and “learning by doing” are in this context of utmost importance. The learning efficiency of sitting in a lecture room with
124
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
unidirectional teaching can be frightfully low. It is advisable to reduce such classroom activities to a minimum. A limited number of survey lectures might be useful for conveying fascination and enthusiasm to the students in view of what they are supposed to learn, but the learning proper must be done by the students themselves in the laboratory, in nature, in discussion groups, in the library, or in a quiet room by reading and writing. Project-oriented learning has particularly high efficiency. Projects provide a realistic environment where many unforeseeable incidences occur, just as in real life. In taskoriented learning, the students themselves select those courses or study subjects that are relevant for solving the problems encountered in the course of their projects. In this way, student researchers are naturally filled with motivation to study in depth the relevant subjects. They develop personal initiative to structure their own learning process. Frequently, the curiosity, excited in this way, carries the researcher to different subjects, off the main road, that might even lead to an unexpected discovery or to novel insights. It is here that serendipity has the raw material on which to act. Old teaching wisdom dictates that the foremost teaching goal is to motivate the student, to stimulate his or her curiosity, and then the learning will proceed by itself.
)NTERDISCIPLINARITY Interdisciplinarity appears to be sufficiently important to deserve a special, rather extended section within this brief essay. Project-oriented activities and “learning by doing” are invariably inter-disciplinary and reach beyond the scope of a single faculty. Nature does not classify the problems to be solved according to anthropomorphic disciplines ! Innovation and creative problem solving happen most frequently right at the interdisciplinary boundaries. An excellent example for demonstrating the importance of an inter-disciplinary approach is the field of science in which the author was active for more than 40 years, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance or NMR [Ernst, 1987]. A brief synopsis of NMR shall serve for illustrative purposes. The story starts in the rather esoteric field of elementary particle physics. Many atomic nuclei possess a built-in magnetic moment. Applying a strong external magnetic field leads to a precession of the magnetic moments about the direction of the field with rates determined by the magnetic field strength. This precession of atomic nuclei in a magnetic field is called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). It is a fundamental phenomenon that reveals most enlightening applications of quantum mechanics for demonstrating basic principles. However at first, it hardly appeared to be useful for a broader society. By pure accident, it was found 1950 that the chemical environment of the nuclei has a magnetic shielding effect on the magnetic field experienced by the nuclei and is reflected in the measured NMR frequencies. Each atomic nucleus within a molecule exhibits a different resonance frequency, and each molecule shows a characteristic spectrum of frequencies. These “fingerprints” allow for powerful applications to the chemical analysis of substances and in this way, NMR became an indispensable analytical tool in chemistry and in the chemical industry. Experimental NMR developed into a truly high-tech field that, in many respects, stretches current technical limits. Extremely strong and stable magnetic fields are needed.
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
125
The emitted NMR signals are incredibly weak and require advanced high-frequency electronics for their reception. In addition, complex computer routines became indispensable for the analysis of the highly informative experimental data. NMR truly challenged the technological development. Mathematics in the form of the Fourier transformation has lead to a revolution in the experimental NMR procedures. The Nobel Prize citation of the author mentions this achievement as a major breakthrough. The recording of the inherently low sensitivity NMR spectra could be speeded up several orders of magnitude by a pulsed excitation of all resonances in parallel. With a mathematical Fourier transformation, the various resonance frequencies can then be disentangled readily. The gained sensitivity improvement was seminal for the application to complex bio-molecules and for entering the medical field. Later, it was found that the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules in solution could be determined by an extension of NMR spectroscopy, making a great impact on molecular biology. Instead of one-dimensional NMR spectra, two- and threedimensional spectra are used for this purpose. 2D and 3D spectra visualize the mutual proximity of nuclei within the chemical bonding network of the molecules. Inter-nuclear distances can also be measured and represented in this way. Based on two complementary types of two-dimensional spectra, it is then possible to triangulate the positions of the magnetic atomic nuclei within a biological macromolecule. This allows the determination of accurate three-dimensional models of bio-molecules. The molecular structures thus obtained became indispensable for studying the function and interaction of biologically relevant enzymes and functional building blocks. Three decades ago, an exciting possibility was discovered for medical NMR applications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) beautifully reveals the inner secrets of patients in a clinical environment. By the application of magnetic field gradients, it is possible to localize the origin of an NMR signal emitted from an organ in a human body and to derive fascinating images that reveal much about healthy or diseased organs and delivers invaluable information for a clinician who is planning surgery. Today, MRI provides the most powerful and universal diagnostic tool for clinicians interested in the health condition of soft tissue. Especially in the context of cancer diagnosis, the method is of undisputed value. Most recently, functional MRI (fMRI) procedures were developed that allow a detailed study of brain functions. Today, most of the functions of a brain can be localized accurately in the brain matter. This development has paved the way to revealing insights for psychologists who can study in great detail the human reactions and the interplay of various senses. For numerous brain diseases, diagnostic markers have been developed already. Much further development can be expected in the near future, improving our understanding of the most complex and most fascinating human organ, the brain.
! METAPHOR NMR has taken advantage of mathematics, physics, and electronics for solving problems in chemistry, biology, and clinical medicine. In the near future, even the practice of clinical psychology might become unthinkable without access to functional MRI. Today NMR is indeed today a truly multi-disciplinary endeavor.
126
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
A close interaction between academic institutions and industry was seminal for the design of the required sophisticated NMR spectrometers. The development started in the 1950’s within the Stanford Industrial Park that was the birthplace of the famous Silicon Valley. It became a metaphor for the benefits of university-industry collaboration. The development of NMR spectrometers at Varian Associates in Palo Alto, California, presents an excellent example for such fruitful interaction. The author was personally active at Varian in the 1960’s. A similar collaboration between academia and industry, on a somewhat smaller scale, took place a little later in Switzerland between ETH Zürich and the company Trüb-Täuber. It led finally, to the foundation of Bruker-BioSpin, the present worldwide market leader in NMR. The author was also actively involved in this interaction. Multi-disciplinary research activities and cooperation are indispensable in many other fields as well. In this context, one often makes the experience that collaboration between narrow-minded experts, knowledgeable in one field only, is difficult if not impossible. Collaboration is most efficient when the involved researchers are acquainted themselves with several fields. A strong overlap of knowledge is highly desirable. The consequences for university teaching are obvious. Multi-disciplinary education is a must for those who desire to work at the frontier of science. Obviously, the wide range of inter-disciplinary demands on the students and researchers is enormous. Nevertheless, disciplinary detailed knowledge, in at least one field, is indispensable. All-rounders without depth will achieve little or nothing. One may summarize the situation in the aphorism : Focusing is indispensable for understanding, while widening the scope is needed for comprehension.
(UMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Multi-disciplinary education does not stop at the outskirts of science. We should not forget how much in our world is beyond the realities explored by the exact, natural sciences. The sciences impose on themselves restrictions for exploring exclusively phenomena of nature that can be measured reproducibly and quantitatively. The humanities have a wider scope and deal also with all human and inter-human aspects. They try to comprehend human reactions and thoughts, feelings, anxieties and happiness, perhaps even love and hatred. And the social sciences provide clues for understanding the functioning and malfunctioning of human communities and societal structures. Their fascinating and highly relevant conclusions cannot be disregarded, when planning our future. Technology is not sufficient ! Many phenomena in the human sciences cannot be quantified. Nevertheless, today, the human sciences are under pressure to apply methods similar to the ones of the natural sciences in order to be taken seriously. Sometimes, one is struck by the feeling that the powerful methodology of the natural sciences is running like a steamroller over the human sciences. Many of the relevant subtleties of the humanities are swept under the carpet in this way. A certain resistance against the rational and materialistic attitudes of the natural sciences is in order to save some of the traditional humanistic spirit. There is little doubt that we, “the exact scientists”, can learn much from the humanities and social sciences. On the other hand, the latter are equally dependent on our technological discoveries and achievements for their professional functioning and for their
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
127
personal survival. Obviously, there is an urgent need for breaking the long-standing barriers between natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences, also within our universities. We need combined projects addressing questions that cannot be solved by one discipline alone ; and many questions concerning our global future are of this kind. In addition, we need discussion groups and think tanks that combine the knowledge of all faculties in order to progress, perhaps, towards the ‘wisdom’ necessary for developing visions of a beneficial, future. I will return to this point below.
4HE ARTS While the humanities are still part of an intellectual perception of reality, the arts are devoted, in addition, to human sensuality in its widest meaning. In the arts, the senses and their sensations are taken seriously, even if many experiences happen rather subconsciously, such as in musical adventures. The humanities attempt to rationalize artistic impressions, functioning as external observers of the arts and applying a descriptive, historical, and analytical view. Often, they concentrate on a classification of the art’s products, while the innermost artistic message can only be emotionally experienced by a devout, patient, and humble observer and by active artists themselves. A true appreciation of art requires a personal involvement in the form of a performing artist or interpreter and is beyond an impersonal scientific and often rather stuffy humanistic analysis. Let us read, as an example of revealing art, some beautiful words, written by Jalaluddin Rumi : The morning wind spreads its fresh smell. We must get up and take that in, that wind that lets us live. Breathe before it’s gone. Twenty-five unpretentious words that span a poetic world, full of spirit ! Here, the author seems to me to be not far from what we aspire to mean by the term ‘wisdom’. How should we scientists deal with the arts ? Shall we ignore art or try to integrate it into our scientific edifice ? Shall we take advantage of artists’ gifts to enhance the appeal of our results for better performance on the intellectual market ? I am convinced that true art can never be “useful” in this sense. Art cannot be exploited or it ceases to exist. Art has rather a complementary function that supplements other, more intellectual human activities and sets an imaginative and reflective contrast. The relevant contacts between the arts and the sciences happen deeply within our personal sense of life, the domain where all experiences and emotions unite to form our self, the self that defines our identity and that renders our life meaningful and unique. Here in the union of arts, humanities, and science, finally, we find the true origin of all encompassing wisdom. Wisdom is often transitory. It may be experienced just as brief glimpses or flashes of revelations that reveal eternal insights and lead to moments of comprehension. Such mental experiences have enormously stimulated the development of all human activities from the arts to religion, and to science. In fact, science and the arts have much in common. It is said that those humans who maintain some of their youthful curiosity and spontaneity often tend to become scientists, or artists. Both are fields driven by creativity and invention.
128
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
4HE TWO LEGGED PERSON In place of a summary, I would like to invoke the metaphor of a two-legged person for describing my vision of a well-balanced human being. The first leg stands for his (or her) professional activities, which might have been developed to near perfection. Nevertheless, it remains difficult for a professional to hop on a single leg towards a distant goal down a long and dusty road. Symbolically, he or she needs a second leg, representing his or her complementary passionate interests. These may be and should be centered far outside the professional realm, forcing the person into an almost painfully wide spreading of the imaginary legs – painful, for example, due to the lack of time needed to pursue all interests simultaneously. Only these additional passions, irrespective of their particularities – they need not be artistic – give the person a safe stand and allow him to progress. The spare-time passions provide more than just relaxation and enjoyment. They are often a rewarding source of professional and human creativity and inspiration. Analogies between remote subjects, brought into juxtaposition within our mind, are most inspiring and invaluable for inventive searchers and researchers. Indeed, in personal terms, I like to consider myself as such a two-legged, perhaps even a three-legged person. My early personal interest for science, particularly for experimental chemistry, developed during my teens in parallel to my active enthusiasm for music, having played the violoncello and composed classical music. Chemistry and music formed my two legs for the first 35 years. And indeed, they were complementary in many respects ; my knowledge of NMR opened the avenues to the wide world ; and music laid the foundation to a harmonious family life, my wife playing the violin and I playing the cello already on our very first encounter. In addition, I experienced how mentally similar the activities of a scientific author and of a musical composer are. Having written a piece of complex music is as equally rewarding as writing a complex scientific paper. Both evoke a mix of pride and inadequacy. In retrospection, I was hardly ever satisfied with my own products in either field. There are indeed close analogies between science and writing music. For example, a sonata and a scientific paper are similarly structured with “introduction”, “exposition”, “development”, “recapitulation”, and “coda”. The parallel voices in a musical composition find their analogy in the harmonious or disharmonious cooperation of several authors on a research work. Musical compositions are full of symmetries and broken symmetries that are so essential in fundamental physics as well as in nature. Symmetries radiate special appeal to the human mind. They act on us like rhymes in poetry. We all know that three legs are better than two for a stable stand. Indeed, I later came to acquire a third leg that has been very precious and important to me. I discovered my love for Tibetan paintings quite accidentally [Ernst, 2001, 2004]. Tibetan painting art is unique in the way it blends with the entire daily and spiritual life of Tibetans. Through fascinating and most colorful paintings, called thangkas, one easily gains access to virtually all aspects of their culture and customs. All human activities are represented skillfully in this great art of Central Asia. Tibet holds a special position at the interface between the different Asian cultural trends originating from India, China, Persia, and Mongolia. All these cultures left their traces in Tibetan painting art. Nevertheless, the latter developed its own very particular style. Tibetan painting art is inseparable from Buddhist philosophy and spirituality. Even for a rational Western scientist, Buddhism is easy to comprehend due to its simple philo-
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
129
sophical and ethical rules that are not in contradiction to our basic scientific principles. The colorful surface of Tibetan painting art and the enormous complexity of the Tibetan pantheon can be disturbing (and fascinating) on the first sight. But soon one realizes that the multitudes of displayed deities have been conceived as metaphors for philosophical principles and are in no way assuming or even frightening. It is the author’s experience that the deeper one digs into the fundamentals of a particular religion, the more similarities between religions one discovers. In fact, all the great religions have common foundations and only their superficial and, after all, irrelevant manifestations differ. It is just such irrelevancies that are indeed responsible for many of our sad clashes of cultures. If we would take them less seriously in their claims for infallibility, the coexistence of cultures could be more harmonious. In this way, we have closed the circle from the introductory critical remarks to a more comprehensive view of the position of man and woman in the universe. The first part of this essay may be taken as a plea for education towards bias-free and limit-less openness, combined with critical thinking, and, most importantly, combined with wisdom and compassion, leading to personal responsibility.
4HE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UNIVERSITIES The attainment of personal wisdom, described above, helps individuals to become wellbalanced human beings. But academic professionals are not luxury plants, nurtured by society, for their own pleasure. The dilemma is well expressed by Nawab Jan-Fishan Khan (19th c. Afghanistan) : The candle is not there to illuminate itself. The academic community has a mission and a function within human society that alone justifies the great public expenses for universities. First of all and most importantly, as discussed above, universities have an educational function, fostering a next generation of citizens, specialists, and societal leaders. Education is by far the major obligation of universities. Karl Popper said [Popper, 1996] : “I am thinking of the obligation of each intellectual to help others for liberating themselves and for developing a critical mind, a duty which most intellectuals have forgotten since Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Unfortunately, the desire to impress and, as Schopenhauer said, to infatuate instead of instructing is wide spread among intellectuals”. Students shall be educated broadly and comprehensively as explained in part 1. We do not need mere experts knowing everything about very little. Encyclopedic knowledge is better stored in databases. Society is in need of innovative and initiative citizens who are ready to assume responsibility. Before mentioning possible societal responsibilities of academics, let us have a candid look at today’s world.
! SOBER VIEW OF OUR ,IVES Our daily lives become ever more hectic. Competition is lurking behind each corner. In order to succeed, everybody has to run faster. We scientists have to produce more inventions and to write more papers per unit time, stimulating industry to produce more (often useless) consumer products. The consumer is encouraged to buy and consume more to
130
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
keep industrial productivity up. Indeed, the term “consumer” is a very ugly, but accurate designation of our function from the viewpoint of economic productivity. We serve as incessantly consuming black holes for empting the shelves in the supermarket. Occasional abdominal pains are regarded as quite natural and further stimulate the sales of pharmacies and the visits of medical doctors. A well functioning self-sustaining system of consumption ! – We produce piles of waste in this manner ; and in the evening before sleeping, we ask ourselves : what sense does all this hectic activity make ? We can hardly expect to find a reassuring answer. Nevertheless, next morning, we continue to operate our senseless treadmill. Robert H. Frank, a professor at Cornell University has well characterized the situation : “That many goods become more attractive to us when others also have those means that consumption spending has much in common with a contagious illness. The explosive proliferation of sport-utility vehicles in American parking lots is simply unintelligent” [Frank, 1999]. True, there is no life without dissipation. Thermodynamically, life represents a state far from equilibrium that can only be maintained by dissipation. To live means to commit environmental sins. The pertinent question is not whether to live on the account of the surroundings or not, but to which extent, and how this extent could be further minimized. Today, humane forces that could give life a deeper meaning, a sense, are lacking. The balance of incentives and interests, described in the first part, has been lost. The only remaining drive (today we would call it a Mega-trend) is making money. In some “advanced” countries, even the children in elementary school are trained in the procedures of fast moneymaking. Indeed, all forms of success are, ultimately, measured in monetary units. The dance around the golden calf with all its excesses has become actual reality today as hardly ever before in history since Moses and Aaron in the 13th century BC ! Ethics has no longer a place in our world, except when it can be exploited for moneymaking purposes. Money-mindedness is probably the most abundant and most dangerous disease today !
! SOBER VIEW OF TODAY´S WORLD Our world seems to be in a process of disintegration, despite all available means of communication and much too inexpensive means of transportation. Also in our world at large, fairness and compassion are ebbing, leaving behind plain ruthless egoism and hardheaded money-mindedness. Politics . Perhaps, the most frequently declared political goal today is to install universal ‘human freedom’ for all citizens in all countries ; freedom from all conceivable restraints. Its attainment appears to sanctify nearly all, even detestable means to reach the goal. Freedom is unquestionably one of the most precious of human rights. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of the 10th December 1948, ‘freedom’ is defined in a universally accepted formulation : “Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
131
Inspired by this admirable document, a number of major wars has been started and, some of them, not yet terminated. Often, it is claimed that bringing freedom to an alien country gives the aggressor blessings, rendering him a savior ! – Blessing – by whom ? It is certainly not by the UN or by the World community ! In many cases, ‘bringing freedom’ is no more than just a pretext for extending the domain of influence and power, leading to commercial dominance and opening new markets for questionable products, and getting access to the dwindling energy resources. Once again, monetary and power cravings are the real driving forces. The justification of aggression is frequently based on undeniable historical facts but the chain of previous historical fact is often purposely discontinued at an instance suitable to leave the guilt on the shoulders of an adversary. Instead of justifying crimes, it would be more appropriate to listen to Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) : “an eye for an eye – makes the whole world blind”. Crimes, even crimes done in revenge, never lead to a lasting and just peace ! Economy. Another misunderstood interpretation of ‘freedom’ underlies the ideology of ‘free market economy’. A free market implies freedom for the stronger, the more successful entrepreneurs. It gives the stronger ones the ’freedom’ to take advantage, by legal means, of the weaker ones, making grandiose profits on the account of the needy. This process further enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor. Today, all success of business is measured in monetary units by using the shareholder value as a well-accepted indicator. Right is merely what pays out ! Free market economy is conceived as a freely running system under the only constraint of optimizing profits. The principle is highly functional, and, at first sight, also appears to the advantage of the consumer when, under competitive pressure, prices drop (usually, quality drops as well !). However, the consumer’s advantages are illusory because the large and powerful international companies decide on the products the consumer has to consume. Psychological marketing, exploiting the naivety of the consumer, is of paramount importance today. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the free market system is the disrespect of possible long-term damage of the environment and the plundering of the finite natural resources. Well before the damaging effects of our selfish misusage become apparent, the gains are dissipated in luxury. The claimed self-correcting features of a free-market feedback system are ineffective in the longer term ; they just serve only to optimize the short-term profits. Here the instigation of control mechanisms by impartial authorities is indispensable. The consequences of the ruthless usage of misunderstood ‘freedom’ in political and economic respects are become frightfully apparent today. Our world is in the course of being split into two parts ; the affluent one and the suffering, despairing, and impoverished one. Obviously, a split world is an inherently unstable one. The strong gradient of wealth and (apparent) happiness engenders a strong surge to commit crimes for correcting injustice and suffering. This gradient can only be maintained by brute force, for example by the building of separating walls and barbed wire fences. The first known example is the Great Wall in China With many further real walls erected in the millennia since then. Even, more mental walls have been created to also separate social groupings, and some of these also still exist today. Certainly, the worst walls are those in our own heads. They lead to preconceived notions and to racial hatred.
132
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
/UR ACADEMIC MISSION As I see it, in this sick world, the academic community is obliged to fulfill a rescue mission. It is essential to realize that this mission is truly long-term. An immediate beneficial result can hardly be expected. Universities and the academic community possess no executive power. Their influence is through conviction by giving good advice and through public teaching. By far the most powerful means universities possess to influence the steering of our global space ship is through education of students. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders in politics and in industry. The positive seeds that are implanted into their brains might germinate after one or two decades. But several further societal obligations rest on the shoulders of our universities : Life-Long-Learning. We all know how essential learning and re-learning remains during the entire life span. Obviously, everybody has his personal responsibility to remain up-to-date. But the universities should be encouraged to offer opportunities to all for the refreshment of one’s own knowledge. Academics in industry and public life should obtain opportunities to return regularly to the university to refill their intellectual backpack, to get acquainted with the most modern technology, and, particularly, to critically reflect on the present course of industry, society, and our world today. The preparation of suitable courses and seminars by the faculty is quite demanding. Often, the professionals in industry have gained more experience and know far more than the university professors, scratching their heads detached in their ivory towers. For this reason, it is indispensable that all university professors spend at least once in their career an extended time period in industry or in a public institution outside of the university. Only in this way, can they develop a proper understanding of life beyond their realm. I myself spent nearly five years in industry in the US just after finishing my studies, and have I profited enormously from the experience for the entirety of my subsequent career in teaching and research. Life-Long-Learning applies to everybody, and universities should also offer courses for non-professional citizens. Many possible means exist for implementing this demand : from TV broadcasts to articles in the daily, weekly, or monthly press, to public lectures, courses on special subjects, and days of Open House at university institutes. In this context, let me just mention two recent activities at ETH Zürich in which I was personally involved. Last year, ETH Zürich celebrated its 150 years jubilee [Eberle & Schwyzer, 2006]. On this occasion, 150 professors were asked to interact with the public in the streets of Zürich. Small pavilions were erected at some busy crossings in downtown, equipped with PowerPoint projection and screens, and seats for about 80-100 participants. Here, 430 lectures were presented in three weeks on subjects freely selected by the professors. Most of the lecture events were overcrowded. The public interest was enormous and the response very positive. I hope that we will be able to continue this kind of teaching activity in the near future. A major goal was to stimulate the discussion with the public for gaining valuable input to the university faculty and to increase the public trust in the universities. The professors were excited about their positive experiences. Surely, they would do it again ! Another, on-going activity is entitled “ETH in Dialogue”. The initiative consists of an open-ended offer of ETH faculty members to present lectures at varied occasions all around Switzerland. For this purpose, an Internet access exists where the list of possible
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
133
lectures is publicized, and at which requests for lectures can be placed (WWWETHIMDIALOG ETHZCH). In this way, it becomes possible to adorn any planned event with a fascinating lecture by an ETH faculty member, perhaps even a birthday party for Grandma ! This is an attractive way of spreading knowledge and reflection to the general public. Last but not least, it presents good opportunities to stimulate young people for studying sciences. Conceiving a beneficial and sustainable future. Who else, if not the universities and the academic community, has an obligation to reflect on our common global future ? We cannot expect much long-term reflection from society’s busy operators, the politicians and business leaders. They are fully absorbed by solving today’s problems in the hope of surviving in their posts and of making short-term profits for their companies (and for themselves). The short-term responsibilities on their shoulders weigh heavily and leave them little room for farsighted planning of a global future. The academic community at universities does not suffer from this kind of load. Many have tenure and are free to conceive novel, unheard ideas. Indeed, this is one of their primary obligations. To some extent, they are paid for serving as critical voices that offer alternative avenues towards a better world. The universities should serve as incubators of novel concepts and act as radiating cultural centers that stimulate the discussion in the general public. Let me mention a few issues of global importance that ought to be discussed in university circles in this context : International cooperation and regional unions. The international collaboration between governments, functions rather poorly today. Nation States mostly defend their own interests, analogously to the comportment of individuals. The European Union, however, is a shining positive exception in a dark world. Just compare the state of Europe sixty years ago with the present. Nobody could have imagined that a peaceful cooperation and coexistence of former enemies would ever be possible. Despite all its difficulties, the European Union functions very well, and another major war in Central Europe seems virtually inconceivable. Its origin was an economic collaboration in a competitive world, but slowly, also a political unification is taking place. Europeans consider themselves truly as “Europeans”. The experiment has worked better than was to be expected. Why not use the EU as a role model also in other regions of the globe ? Already in 1932 Albert Einstein wrote the following to Sigmund Freud : “Thus I am led to my first statement : The quest for international security requires that each nation unconditionally surrenders some fraction of its liberty of action, of its sovereignty” [Einstein and Freud, 1966]. In none of the world’s regions, will it be easy to find a common denominator, but the example of ‘Europe’ shows that it is not impossible. For example, an East Asian Union is imaginable, unifying Japan, Korea, Mongolia, and hopefully also China. A South Asian Union could bring together peacefully India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and even Pakistan. It would also highly desirable to conceive an Islamic Union in the Middle East. As is well known, it had its predecessors with the United Arab Republic and some other attempts at unification. Their failure is no excuse for not trying again. Indeed, without a unified voice, the area has no chance of facing the devastating pressure from outside. Unless the Arabic countries take coordinated action, they make themselves co-responsible for today’s tragedies within and around their countries. Such thoughts might be worth discussing in conscientious university circles in order to prepare the public opinion for moves in the proper direction.
134
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
International organizations. Regional unions would be beneficial but are insufficient. Strong international organizations and binding international agreements are needed, in addition, to define the rules of peaceful cooperation and problem solving. – Democracy is advocated as the best system for internally organizing a State. Each individual has the same rights and obligations, defined and guaranteed by the State laws. – On the international level, similar principles could apply as well. Each State should be entitled to the same rights and obligations, warranted by international laws. Unfortunately, the most powerful State on our globe blocks the installment of an efficient network of international laws and organizations that could implement these laws. Selfishness prevails in the international relations that seem to reflect a state of development several hundred years behind the situation within modern democratic States where the concepts of equal rights have become commonplace. Indeed, that same superpower is the most active promoter of inner democracy, but at the same time a real stumbling block for reshaping of international relations, in a democratic manner. It is urgent to develop a new spirit at universities that, finally, may inspire a new generation of far-sighted politicians. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a US Nobel Laureate in economic of 2001, said : “We cannot go back on globalization, it is here to stay. The issue is how we can make it to work. And if it is to work, there have to be global institutions to help set the rules” [Stiglitz, 2003]. Energy problem. Finding solutions for the threatening Global energy problem is of immediate academic concern. Our future may crucially depend on a conscientious usage and fair distribution of presently available forms of energy, and on making new sustainable energy resources accessible. Major technological breakthroughs are needed towards this goal, but, in addition, the present misusage of energy must be minimized. It is inconceivable that all global citizens could ever dissipate as much energy as we today in “advanced” countries. Again, binding international agreements are needed, together with an energy-conscientious education of the population. Universities have a great responsibility in this respect. Converting the free market into a responsible market economy. It is apparent that an unlimited free market cannot solve the long-term problems of mankind. As mentioned above, short-term thinking and egotistic reasoning prevail today, as mentioned above. Adam Smith characterized the human motives in his well-known saying : “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages” [Smith, 1776/1937]. Indeed, his words reflect facts about “natural” and inborn human behavior that we experience daily. But he seems to disregard the constraints imposed by society and by our responsibility for their beneficial long-term development. This acceptation of responsibility cannot result from the human instincts to which his words refer. Only by conscientious education and by convincing role models, it is possible to motivate people to behave in a compassionate and unselfish way to help others. My preferred (perhaps utopian) model of an economic system is a “responsible market economy”. In contrast to the “free market economy”, where the personal profits and the shareholder value are the driving forces, in a responsible market economy, the partici-
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
135
pant acts out of conviction that certain actions are needed for the sake of today’s or tomorrow’s society. And he does not ask for his own personal gains, whether directly or indirectly. Altruistic behavior would be the basic drive in such a model. Maybe this sounds too idealistic, but still I think it is a goal that is worth pursuing. Certainly, universities are the proper place to further discuss the consequences and how to reach such a goal. Help for the poorest on the globe. For easing the fate of the poorest people on the globe, it seems to me indispensable to implement a responsible market economy. Indeed, they need help and support to be able to live a humane life. A free market economy cannot provide this perspective. It invariably leads to exploitation. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in economics of 2001, writes : “International humanitarian assistance is a form of collective action that springs from a shared compassion for others. As efficient as markets may be, they do not ensure that individuals have enough food, clothes to wear, or shelter. Poverty can lead to environmental degradation, and environmental degradation can contribute to poverty” [Stiglitz, 2003]. Helping the poorest has much to do with ethics. I think that ethical principles should be articulated more in our university courses. They are the basis of a well functioning human society. After all, it is immaterial where we draw our ethical principles from. They are virtually identically found in the foundations of all our diverse philosophical and religious systems. From Christian to Islamic, to Buddhist, and Hindu thoughts, the same principles of charity and compassion prevail in all great traditions. Ethics in a scientific context has been discussed in a convincing way by Hans Jonas [Jonas, 1979] : “Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life”. He writes further : “Prometheus, liberated at last, who received from science inconceivable power and from economics the restless impetus, calls for an ethics which, by free restraint, limits its potency from becoming fatal to human beings… What can serve as a compass ? The envisioned danger itself !”. Respecting cultural diversity. The Clash of Civilizations is in full swing today, partially because of the short-sightedness of politicians and their self-centered advisors, partially due to disastrous effects of unrestricted profit optimization. – Following the theme touched above, indeed our world cultures have more in common than is apparent on the first sight, and their coexistence and mutual enrichment should cause no major difficulties. This is also what we experience daily in our universities where fruitful collaboration is easily possible across all racial and cultural barriers. In this sense, the life at universities might serve as a metaphor for peaceful human coexistence. The university is an ideal meeting place for different cultures, for becoming acquainted with each other, and for understanding each other. When we actively take advantage of this unique situation, we could contribute significantly to the inter-cultural understanding and to world peace. We should not forget that our cultures are treasures of heritage that we must preserve. Cultures are our living grounds that give us confidence and stability. Some of those who have lost their cultural roots might become terrorists, as they have nothing left that they could lose or sacrifice – except for their own life. Many more subjects could be mentioned that should form part of the academic obligations. We are encouraged to constantly question our value system in the hope of finding universal wisdom that better reflects the needs of our own and the future society.
136
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
#ONCLUDING REMARKS When we step back and impartially observe the course our world has taken, we might arrive at a frightening doomsday scenario that leads sooner or later to a technological and societal dead end. The energy dilemma clearly reveals that we are irreversibly depleting resources. But we also deplete them in many other respects ; we deplete goodwill and societal balance. We deplete the significance of compassion in favor of personal monetary enrichment. When all these precious resources are gone, human culture is gone, and we endanger our own existence. In this situation, universities share co-responsibility for developing a beneficial and sustainable future of our globe and of the human community. Besides our basic research efforts, we need to spend some of our resources to clarify our dangerous global situation and to find avenues for improving the chances of a happy continuation of human culture. We need the courage to articulate our views, peacefully of course. And we have to sensitize and train our students in a way that they can contribute actively to a beneficial future. Our responsibility is great and unique. Let us recognize our role and improve our performance, even if the direct profits for us, teachers, seems to be negligibly small. Certainly, the satisfaction will remain to us that we might have contributed all we ever could to save our beautiful world and our precious living grounds. In conclusion, we should perhaps take to heart the words that Karl Popper expressed on December 17, 1993, in Berlin : “Optimism is our duty. We all are co-responsible for what is coming” [Popper, 1996].
2EFERENCES Cowper, W, (1785) The Task. Eberle, M. K. & Schwyzer, N. (2006) Heute für Morgen. Das Gestern feiern. Das Buch zum Jubiläum 150 Jahre ETH Zürich, Verlag NZZ. Einstein, A., Freud, S. (1966) Warum Krieg ? Ein Briefwechsel, Diogenes, Zürich. Ernst, R. R. (2001) “Arts and Sciences. A personal perspective of Tibetan painting”, Chimia 55, 900-914. Ernst, R. R. (2004) Science and Arts, EPR Newsletter 14, 14-19. Ernst, R. R., Bodenhausen, G., Wokaun, A. (1987) Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Frank, R. H. (1999) Luxury Fever. Money and Happiness in an Era of Excess, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Gibran, K. (1926) Sand and Foam, Knopf, Reissue Edition. Jonas, H. (1979) Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die Technologische Zivilisation, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, transl. John H. McDonald. Popper, K. R. (1996) Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik, Piper, München. Rumi Jalaluddin, (13th century/1997) The Essential Rumi, transl. Coleman Barks. Smith, A. (1776/1937) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York. Stiglitz, J. (2003) Globalization and its Discontents, W. W. Norton & Company.
0ATTERNED $IVERSITY IN )NTERDISCIPLINARY $IALOGUES ,ESSONS FROM AN %MPIRICAL 3TUDY OF )NTERDISCIPLINARY 2ESEARCH AT THE &RONTIER by Veronica Boix Mansilla
In recent years, interdisciplinary research has been equated with all things novel, forward looking, collaborative and adventurous. Theoretical Physicists have begun to model phenomena traditionally beyond their purview : life, death, human interactions and consciousness [Wolfram, 2002 ; Crutchfield, 2002 ; West, this volume]. Artists on the other hand are borrowing computer-code and embedding themselves in biological engineering labs to redefine aesthetic expression [Simbiotica, 2007]. It is increasingly clear that the most pressing challenges of cultural and environmental survival (e.g., mitigating climate change, developing biomedical technologies, legislating migration) can only be addressed at the fertile intersection of multiple disciplines. Under closer scrutiny, cross disciplinary dialogue confronts researchers with new communicative and epistemic demands, including the demand of establishing what constitutes a productive dialogue and a fruitful interdisciplinary synthesis. Together with a growing number of initiatives such as those held by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the United States National Academies of Sciences, and the Tälberg Forum in Sweden, the World Knowledge Dialogue Foundation sheds a committed light on the need for (and difficulties of) cross disciplinary dialogue. On the ground, this timely call for exchanges across C. P. Snow’s two cultures often meets the challenge of cross disciplinary communication, the obstacle of contrasting epistemologies, and above all the lack of clear parameters to determine what constitutes a productive dialogue and interdisciplinary synthesis [Snow, 1993].
138
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
#ONTRASTING VIEWS OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY For example, in a now classic intellectual dispute, E. O. Wilson and Stephen J. Gould proposed contrasting views of interdisciplinarity. Wilson confers to science a privileged place as a unifying ground for all forms of knowledge by virtue of yielding findings that are highly reliable, law-like, and rigorously measured. “Complexity is what interests scientists… and reductionism [viewed as science’s unique leverage] is a way to understand it” [Wilson, 1998 : 54]. In Wilson’s view, interdisciplinary coordination involves reducing problems of study in the social and cultural world (e.g., social behavior, art, and technology) to their basic bio-chemical components (e.g., the neurological categories that might explain the social or creative experience). Gould, on the other hand, critiques Wilson’s proposed reductionism and argues that the best interdisciplinary work recognizes the intrinsic differences in disciplinary forms of knowledge, each embracing a unique [and often complementary] form of explanation [Gould, 2003 : 255]. Unibus Plurum, he argued, is the epistemic high ground. Independently of whether one finds oneself agreeing with one or another position, their accounts speak to the very problem examined in this paper : how disciplinary insights can be brought together and their integration assessed. Concerned with the chasm between a growing call for interdisciplinary research and the lack of an empirical understanding of cognitive, epistemic, social and institutional foundations of interdisciplinary work – my colleagues and I at the Interdisciplinary Studies Project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education turned our eyes to the work and views of 55 experts at the frontiers of knowledge production in established interdisciplinary research institutions in the Unites States 22 : The Santa Fe Institute, the MIT Media Lab, the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, the Center for the Integration of Medical Innovations and Technologies and the RED group at Xerox Parc (see Table 1). We asked (1) How do researchers integrate disciplinary traditions to advance their inquiry ? (2) What criteria do they use to validate their findings ?
Table 1 Expert sample by institution and main disciplinary affiliation. Institution and number of faculty/ experts interviewed
Informant
Main disciplinary affiliation of informant
Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania [BioE] N=6
XUP01 XUP02 XUP03 XUP04 XUP05 XUP06
anthropology/communications history/philosophy sociology philosophy sociology philosophy
22
Acknowledgement : I am grateful to the informants in this study for their time and thoughtfulness during extensive interviews ; the Atlantic Philanthropies for their generous support of our work and the World Knowledge Dialogue Foundation for its inspiring vision. Note : An extensive account of these findings will appear in the journal Issues in Integrative Studies.
Patterned Diversity in Interdisciplinary Dialogues
Institution and number of faculty/ experts interviewed
Informant
Main disciplinary affiliation of informant
CIMIT N=7
XC01 XC02 XC03 XC04 XC05 XC06 XC07
engineering medicine (cardiology) physics (medical instruments) medicine (cardiology) medicine medicine (pediatric transplant surgeon) engineering
MIT Media Lab N = 13
XML01 XML02 XML03 XML04 XML05 XML06 XML07 XML08 XML09 XML10 XML11 XML12 XML13
computer science computer science computer science/art linguistics/comparative literature/psychology history/technology in education computer science computer science/science journalism computer science/artificial intelligence/ poet engineering (electrical) history/computer science computer science musician (composer + performer) computer science
Santa Fe Institute N = 15
XSF01 XSF02 XSF03 XSF04 XSF05 XSF06 XSF07 XSF08 XSF09 XSF10 XSF11 XSF12 XAS01 XAS02 XAS03
physics biology/genetics physics physics liberal arts/ marketing finance/economics physics liberal arts biology/physics chemistry English history/sociology /public policy music/physics film making/media (video artist) music
Xerox Parc N=9
XRX01 XRX02 XRX04 XRX05 XRX06 XRX07 XRX08 XRX09 XRX10 XRX11
Audio engineering/design computer science/theater/fine arts communications research architecture/computer science engineering/film/education engineering art/poetry design/technology writer/artist (“media art”) music (composition)/art/engineering
Human Biology, Stanford University [Hum Bio] N =5
XST04 XST07 XST11 XST12 XST18
health policy neuroscience ecology anthropology/biology developmental psychology
139
140
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Predictably our analysis revealed a striking variety of kinds of interdisciplinary integrations, e.g. ranging from computer models of social entropy, empirical approaches to bioethics, the creation of cognitively informed works of art and digitally augmented violins. Perhaps most interestingly, however, our analysis suggested that amidst the broad variety of seemingly idiosyncratic interdisciplinary research practices, at least three approaches to interdisciplinary inquiry can be identified : I term them conceptual-bridging, comprehensive, and pragmatic. Each approach embodies its own preferred epistemological mechanisms for disciplinary integration and the validation criteria by which experienced scholars and scientists assess, accept or reject interdisciplinary findings. In what follows, I introduce each approach, illustrating them with our informant’s observations. I do so with the hope that a detailed characterization of the core intellectual mechanisms that enable experts to merge disciplinary traditions can inform scholars interested in advancing quality interdisciplinary dialogues.
! CONCEPTUAL BRIDGING APPROACH TO INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH We are now looking at many kinds of networks. When one says “networks”, biologists think “metabolic networks”, or if you’re an electrical engineer you think “power grids”, or if you’re a neurobiologist you think “neural networks”. Many basic, common questions cut across different disciplines – questions that bear on how to quantify how the topology of a network controls or facilitates the behavior of the network. [Crutchfield, 2002] The research of James Crutchfield, a leading Theoretical Physicist at the Santa Fe Institute, eloquently illustrates a conceptual-bridging approach to research. In it disciplines are brought together under a unifying concept, principle or mechanism thought to account for a variety of phenomena. Such an approach pivots on the identification of a bridging motif (e.g., “network” “innovation”) that has instantiations in a variety of disciplines as the object of formal understanding and modeling. Crutchfield’s own research examines the origins of evolutionary innovations. It attempts to shed light on why periods of evolutionary stability (where few phenotypical changes are recorded) have been interrupted by periods of rapid innovation (with the emergence of new forms, functions, and species) ? He does not analyze the fossil record, nor does he experiment with gene distribution in rapidly growing fruit fly populations. Instead, he develops computational systems that emulate innovation in complex evolutionary processes. In his view, a mathematical theory of evolutionary dynamics seeks to “articulate a conceptual model of phenomena that range from the molecular scale of genes to the geological scale of macroevolution.” He does not seek to establish a causal relationship between phenomena at these different scales, but rather parallelisms in the way innovation behaves. Three cognitive-epistemic moves characterize a conceptual-bridging approach. First, the concept of “innovation” is selected as a bridging motif because it is implicated in microphenomena studied by molecular biology and macro-evolutionary phenomena typically studied by paleontology. As a unit of analysis, “innovation” provides a level of characterization that enables the integration of disparate phenomena into a single account expressed in mathematical algorithms. Second, researchers establish productive analogies to link disciplines. Analogies often cross the natural/social sciences divide such as the study of
Patterned Diversity in Interdisciplinary Dialogues
141
“innovation”, “entropy”, and “equilibrium” in biological and economic systems. Third, researchers translate concepts and finding across disciplinary languages. If analogies allow researchers to build initial links, translation enables them to integrate epistemologies. For example, in a study of voting practices in his model of the political life of Renaissance Florence, John Padgett adopts an algorithmic language to describe historical phenomena and “manipulate” them to explore how patronage networks and policies may have interacted to yield republicanism at the time. cv [a variable in his model] is cost of voting, analogous to cp the cost of partisanship. Unlike the cost of partisanship, I assume the cost of voting is quite low cv << cp. I don’t assume cv = 0, however, because I presume there is some spatial distance beyond which voters simply don’t care. [Padgett, 2000]
!SSESSING CONCEPTUAL BRIDGING WORK When employing a conceptual-bridging approach, researchers often prioritized models that are elegant and yield predictive and generalizable findings. They valued models that adequately “rip out” the complicated nuances and specificities from the disciplinary problems that they study. Crutchfield explains : I’m specifically interested in evolutionary dynamics, how it is that the biological complications of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory get reduced to describe how populations and structures evolve… the goal is to come up with the simplest possible model that describes the phenomenon. You rip most everything out. There’s even an art to doing it, you rip things out until you’ve got what you can claim are the essential mechanisms – the minimal set that still reproduces the phenomenon you’re studying. And that means you’ve got a small model, a packed, concise model from which you can predict various things that are seen experimentally. For most researchers embracing a conceptual-bridging approach, the gains in predictive power, generalizability, and elegance are associated with increased difficulties in fit between their models of a bridging motif and the particular instantiations of the motif in single disciplines. For instance, Crutchfield welcomes “real, in the lab experiments on evolution to see if the theories are right”. However, when experimental designs stand across disciplinary borders they typically require adjustments by the disciplines involved. He explains : Right now we’re engaged in trying to convince an experimentalist to do the experiments that are simple enough that our theories are applicable. And we’re also attempting to go half way towards them, adapting some of our existing theories to deal with some of the complexities of the experimental world.
! COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK I have a professional interest in the evolution of adult lactose tolerance – why some of the world’s adults can drink milk and most cannot. So you go from that simple question which sounds like it’s a physiological question, which becomes a genetic question, and you go from genetics to really having to look at the cultural history of society, the archeology of what people did with cattle when and where to even the interpretation of ancient text rich in cultural
142
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
meaning to understand how people’s attitude toward milk have changed over time, when and where and under what circumstances. [Durham, 2002] William Durham’s approach to interdisciplinary integration differs from Crutchfield’s in informative ways. Employing a comprehensive approach, he seeks to produce a complex explanation of a phenomenon – in this case, lactose absorption, – whereby aspects of the phenomenon, typically studied by different disciplines, are considered in dynamic complementary (rather than analogical) interaction. In this work insights in genetics, public health, archeology and mythology play distinct evidentiary and explanatory roles. Three epistemic moves seem key to a comprehensive approach to interdisciplinary work. First, Durham frames lactose intolerance as a multidimensional problem standing at the intersection between culturally mandated behavior and the genetic traits in a particular population. “Cultural mediation [as he describes the interaction] occurs whenever a cultural difference in memes23 within or between populations creates a behavioral difference that in turn causes differences in the reproduction of genotypes” [Durham, 1991 :226]. Disciplines that study human biology (e.g., physiology, genetics, biochemistry) inform him about the reproductive success of particular genes and the process of lactose absorbtion. Disciplines that study human cultures (e.g., anthropology, history, art, and mythology) inform him about longstanding practices of milk consumption. Second, an ongoing process of reframing enables researchers to transition across disciplinary boundaries. Reframing involves placing claims or findings emerging from one disciplinary inquiry in the context of another discipline as hypotheses for further exploration. For example, Durham explains : “If lactose absorption is a genetically encoded and inheritable capacity in some human populations, it must have presented an evolutionary advantage at some point in the past”. He then turns to study the past, aided by population genetic analysis of this condition and a close examination of bovine themes in HindoEuropean myths (e.g. nourishing versus bellicose representations) as indicators of ancient milk consumption practices. So what really started as a physiological question became a genetics question became a cultural question and became a question about interpreting text and all the problems of translation and innuendo and meaning that this [process] entails. Third, when employing this approach, researchers describe how they articulate comprehensive accounts integrating insights into a coherent explanatory/descriptive report – one in which multiple causes or factors typically studied by different disciplines are brought together complementarily to advance understanding as a whole. Durham explains “how and why adult lactose absorption has evolved in some human populations and not others” as follows [Durham, 1998 :279]. Using data obtained from samples of human populations in Europe, Greenland, Western Asia, and Africa we have seen that the prevalence of adult lactose absorption co-varies with latitude in a pattern just opposite to that of incident UV light radiation. This finding, together with other evidence concerning the physiology of mineral metabolism, supports the hypothesis that the genes responsible for adult lactose absorption have evolved in high frequencies in populations that (1) have a longstanding tradition of dairying and fresh milk
23
Memes : unit of cultural information that can be transmitted from one mind to another. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins (1976) in The Selfish Gene.
Patterned Diversity in Interdisciplinary Dialogues
143
consumption and (2) live in environments of low ultraviolet radiation where vitamin D and metabolic calcium are chronically deficient.
!SSESSING COMPREHENSIVE WORK Researchers value “comprehensiveness” (thus the descriptor of this approach to integration) as well as explanatory and descriptive power. They view the act of reaching the limits of a single-discipline examination as an opportunity to expand their understanding of a problem creatively through new disciplinary means. As Stanford’s Human Biology Director Russ Fernald put it, this approach invites researchers “to have multiple interpretations [of their problem of study] and consider a spectrum of parameters rather than just varying one at time”. Yet in the eyes of these researchers, comprehensive work comes at a cost. The time required to examine multiple areas of knowledge in enough depth presents important practical challenges. In addition, all too often, as they reframe findings into hypotheses to be explored in other disciplines, they confront scarcity of knowledge about their problems in the discipline being explored. Clearly the multidimensional problems of study that characterize comprehensive interdisciplinary work hold different levels of centrality in the disciplines that are used to account for them.
! PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTERDISCIPLINARITY It is extremely problematic that the early stem cell research currently underway has been driven by small business, because at this early stage the only real resources that small stem cell companies can hope to build up are patents. If stem cell research is tied up at this stage by patents and licensing agreements, even if those patents are held by universities, the effect will hamper research, but moreover will tax any federal dollars for stem cell research in an unacceptable way. At this point one could reasonably argue that as much as 30-50% of the federal funding for stem cell research would flow indirectly to small stem cell companies through the fees that they can assess to any funded researcher…Whether or not there is federal funding of therapeutic cloning, there must be more oversight over nuclear transfer technologies and specifically over the control of those technologies by a few people in small businesses. [McGee, 2001] Glenn McGee, a philosopher at the Center for Bioethics in the University of Pennsylvania, examines the ethical, legal, economic and social issues associated with reproductive genetics and stem cells. He does not seek to model analogical patterns underlying complex systems, nor does he hope to reach a comprehensive characterization of stem cell research ethical dilemmas. Rather he seeks to offer prompt, informed, and impact-full advice to lawmakers about the current status of human embryonic stem cell patenting and the potential consequences of lenient intellectual property adjudications. His work – like that of others who bring disciplinary insights together to develop products or transform the practical world – is marked by a clear sense of purpose and a strategic (often eclectic) selection of disciplinary insights. Two distinct epistemic moves characterize a pragmatic approach to interdisciplinary work : First researchers establish a target outcome – e.g., a legal advice, a new medical technology, a computer artifact. McGee’s target outcome directly defines what constitute effi-
144
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
cient and effective ways to accomplish the task. He examines the technological procedures involved in isolating and cultivating pluripotent human embryonic stem cells to understand how patents define the extent of intellectual property vis-à-vis the materials, forms of manipulation, and methodological uses. He also examines who owns these patents and what incentives they might have to maximize their use in therapeutic research. His analysis excludes cross national comparisons or theological and philosophical considerations, to focus empirically and strategically on US-issued patent claims on human embryonic stem cells up to the time in which the G. W. Bush administration limited federal funding to research employing available stem cell lines. Employing a similar approach, Joseph Vacanti [CIMIT] a leading scientist in artificial human tissue engineering expresses the ethos of pragmatic interdisciplinarity eloquently : My research is problem driven. It is not trying to discover something or trying to take a tool and figure out a way that I might take advantage of it. It is completely problem driven. Once I knew about the silicon micro machine [a technology developed at the MIT Draper Labs], I knew of its advantages and knew we could do something with it. But there were certain unknowns [about how to make the technology work with capillary tissue] and therefore you had to do research. The collaboration was set up specifically as a solution to a major problem. (Vacanti) The second mechanism for interdisciplinary integration is strategic back-filling Strategic backfilling involves weighing potential disciplinary contributions directly against the expected target outcome. It calls for a productive eclecticism in which disciplinary insights are brought together to create an object, a recommendation, or an exhibit that “works.” Vacanti’s proofs of concept approach to experimentation illustrates the pragmatic emphasis here characterized. I skip many, many steps because I want to know, “is this a good idea or a bad idea ?” So we try to Jerry-rig systems that will just try to answer that question. We try to do it carefully. But we skip steps. Sometimes scientists have a reductionist approach to innovation. You go from step 1 to step 2, step 2 to step 2a, step 2ai to 2aii, [thinking] if you do that eventually you’re going to get there. Well, we do some of that, but we say : “We want to build a heart. How can we build a heart ? Well, let’s do this.” Then, if it shows any promise, you can start to back fill. So we do a lot of leap ahead, back fill, leap ahead, back fill. Philosophically, you either think that’s good or you don’t. I think it’s good. And the micro machining [at the Draper Labs] was that large leap ahead. We could see what happened and if it seemed like a sensible idea then back fill while we move ahead. And that’s what we’ve done.
!SSESSING INSIGHTS IN PRAGMATIC WORK Relevance and viability of interdisciplinary problems of study and effectiveness of proposed solutions emerged, perhaps understandably, as dominating epistemic values among researchers employing a pragmatic approach, McGee roots his emphasis on relevance in the Deweyan tradition of “selective emphasis”. During our interview he explained : […] the most important insight, in my view, of pragmatism, is one that’s lost among most bioethicists. It is the question of which problem one ought to study and to what degree one should emphasize that problem relative to other problems in one’s sphere of work, what Dewey calls “selective emphasis”. This is a very, very useful insight that Dewey has about how
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
145
knowledge works and about how people come to think about value. Pragmatism means being involved publicly, recognizing that the relationship between facts and values is not static, and I guess also knowing that there is an inherent weakness to arguments that are based on eternal verities. Echoing such view, Joseph Vacanti explains : “All the original work that I have done professionally is completely driven by my patients’ needs. It has never been because of a piece of science or a piece of technology”. When compared to standards of viability, efficiency and effectiveness in getting the outcome to “work”, measures of “generalizability” or “comprehensiveness” typical of the approaches to interdisciplinary research characterized above, take a distinctly less prominent role. Yet while a strong focus on products and target outcomes and a close relation with relevant audiences emerges as defining qualities, knowledge validation in this kind of work is not without challenges. Some researchers worry about the problem of becoming “too pragmatic” i.e., too outcome oriented. They express concern about the opportunities lost in pragmatic research – opportunities to understand a phenomenon in a deeper way – beyond product development.
4O CONCLUDE Despite its pervasiveness in academic and research and development centers, the concept of interdisciplinarity itself remains elusive and its systematic empirical study scarce [Klein, 1996, 1994]. The term is adopted to refer to a broad array of endeavors. Moreover, with few exceptions [Feller, 2002 ; Galison, 2001, 2003 ; Guetzcow et al., 2003 ; Lattucca, 2001 ; Laudel, 2001a ; Laudel, 2001b ; Rhoten, 2003] empirical examinations of interdisciplinary work take the form of individual case studies, limiting the comparability of results across cases and disciplinary combinations. The three approaches proposed embody distinct ways in which researchers in our study framed and pursued interdisciplinary inquiry problems. Each one is associated with preferred vehicles to integrate disciplinary perspectives, and favored orientations vis-à-vis knowledge validation. As ideal types, the approaches here described help us visualize relevant distinctions among interdisciplinary research enterprises – the strength of one often embodying the weakness of another. For instance, the power of generalizability reached in conceptual-bridging work contrasts sharply with the limitations of pragmatic interdisciplinary research in generalizing findings beyond its specific intended outcomes and audiences. The effectiveness of a pragmatic approach contrasts with the time-consuming nature of comprehensive research, which in turn tends to offer more powerful explanations than its pragmatic counterpart. Each approach embodies preferred forms of cognitive advancement, and researchers are likely to choose among or combine approaches, depending on the overall purpose of their inquiry. Each approach embodies dynamic systems of thought in which purpose, mechanisms of integration, and validation criteria are defined and adjusted in relation to one another. Disciplinary perspectives are not equally represented in each case. The relative dominance of particular disciplines in each case is determined by the purpose of the research itself and shapes the overall enterprise in turn. For example, a conceptual-bridging approach invites the use of formal languages most typical of mathematics and computer science
146
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
or even analytical philosophy. With formal domains as dominant forces, standards of elegance and generalizability are, understandably, at a premium. Comprehensive interdisciplinary work, on the other hand, places a premium on disciplines like anthropology or evolutionary biology – i.e., more synoptic domains which naturally invite multiple disciplinary sources of evidence. In turn pragmatic interdisciplinary work, marked by its emphasis on problem solving and product development, prioritizes disciplines (or professions) such as law, public policy, graphic design, and technology where determining that a solution “works” is valued more than generalizing beyond a particular case or explaining why exactly it “works” in that way. The approaches here proposed are informed by highly innovative work that bridges social, natural and technological domains. By concentrating our sample on informants who were charting novel disciplinary combinations (e.g. in artificial human organ creation, legislation of stem cell research), we were able to capture these researchers’ thinking at the moment in which both mechanisms of integration and standards were being created and in some cases explicitly examined. Further studies may shed a quantitative light on the validity of the approaches proposed and expand beyond the confines of our sample. Especial attention should be paid to the work of scholars primarily driven by literary or artistic sensitivities – underrepresented in our study. A close analysis of the integration mechanism and evaluative criteria by which humanist advance interdisciplinary work that is informed by the natural and the social sciences is consequential in light of the discussions that permeated our first World Knowledge Dialogue conference in Crans-Montana 2006. Arguably, one could expect an artist’s rendition of possibilities and perils of human stem cell research to integrate genetics and the visual arts in a metaphor (e.g., imagined freedoms) that captures essential qualities of contemporary choices vis-à-vis human biology. An artistic rendition of the metaphor would present itself as an open invitation to reflection and public understanding of science. In this rendition standards of evocative power, multiplicity of meaning and personal resonance and contemplative strength are likely to overshadow criteria like generalizability, explanatory power, or effective problem solving. Today, a growing scientifically-informed aesthetic is making its way into contemporary art museums around the world, expanding the stage for a meaningful dialogue. Such is the work of SymbioticA, an arts research laboratory at the University of Western Australia where artists engage in wet biology practices in the Biological Sciences Department and use biological tools and technologies, not just to comment about them but also to explore their expressive possibilities. Their exhibit “Pig Wings”, for instance, features three pieces of artificially engineered pig tissue. Each portion of living tissue is shaped a wing, resembling those of a bat, an angel and a bird respectively. The exhibit provokes a broad range of visitors to examine their own standing on matters of bioethics. Ultimately, understanding the distinct intellectual mechanisms by which experts cross disciplinary boundaries sets the foundation for a much needed dialogue across the sciences and with the humanities. Such a dialogue is more likely to progress in the micro cosmos of particular knowledge advancement initiatives than under a grand theory of integration. Yet to be productive, such dialogue must recognize the patterned diversity of aims and approaches that characterize interdisciplinary work, thus sidestepping the mutual accusations of reductionism and irrelevance that have marred academia for decades [Snow, 1993].
Patterned Diversity in Interdisciplinary Dialogues
147
2EFERENCES Caplan, A., Magnus, D., McGee, G. (Eds) (2002) Who Owns life ?, Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books. Caplan, A., Magnus, D. (2001) “NAS Cloning Hearing Disappoints Participants”, Science 294, 1651. Crutchfield, J. P., Schuster, P. (2002) Evolutionary Dynamics : Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Accident, Neutrality, and Function, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Durham, W. (1991) Co-evolution : Genes, Culture and Human Diversity, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Feller, I. (2002) Performance Measurement Redux, American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4). Galison, P. L. (2001) Science and society, New York, Routledge. Galison, P. L. (2003) Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps, New York, W.W. Norton. Gould, S. J. (2003) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox : Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanities, New York, Harmony Books. Guetzcow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2003) What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences ? Paper presented at the American Sociological Association 2003 Annual Meeting. Klein, J. T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries : Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities, Charlottesville VA, University Press of Virginia. Klein, J. T. & Doty, W. (Eds) (1994) Interdisciplinary Studies Today, San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass. Klein, J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity : history, theory, and practice, Detroit, Wayne State University. Lattuca, L. R. (2001) Creating Interdisciplinarity : Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty, Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press. Laudel, G. (2001a) “What do we measure by co-authorships ?”, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, 369-384. Laudel, G. (2001b) “Collaboration, creativity and rewards : why and how scientists collaborate”, International Journal of Technology Management 22, 762-781. Padgett, J. F. (2000) Modeling Florentine Republicanism, 11/2/00 Internal memo, New Mexico, Santa Fe Institute. Rhoten, D. (2003) A Multi-method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration, in Hybrid Vigor, Final Report. National Science Foundation. Snow, C. P. (1993) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, New York, Canto. Symbiotic, A (2007) HTTP WWWSYMBIOTICAUWAEDUAU,AST, accessed July 2007. Wilson, E.O. (1998) Consilience : The Unity of Knowledge, New York, Alfred Knopf. Wolfram, S. (2002) A New Kind of Science, Champaign, IL, Wolfram Media.
)NCREASING 3CIENTI½C ,ITERACY IN 5NDERGRADUATE %DUCATION ! #ASE 3TUDY FROM ±&RONTIERS OF 3CIENCE² AT #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY by Timon P. McPhearson, Stuart P.D. Gill, Robert Pollack, and Julia E. Sable
General undergraduate education intends to broaden a student’s perspective, to advance alternative ways of thinking, and to develop empathy for other worldviews. While colleges and universities have ballooned with science courses in recent years, they do not often teach the scientific process nor cover the breadth of interesting, contemporary science content. There are many barriers that prevent undergraduates from learning science content and process. When science is not well integrated into a core education curriculum, students may choose not to take elective science courses because they view them as too difficult or worse, unnecessary for their future lives. The subsequent science illiteracy is a detriment to functioning in modern society. Columbia University has endeavored to repair this problem locally by creating a new required undergraduate course that makes science a chief component of a solid core curriculum ; one that is collaborative and multidisciplinary and offers students an opportunity to debate and discuss the philosophical, historical and methodological contexts of current research. This course also allows the faculty to create a forum for open discourse among the diverse student population where nearly eighty percent of students are humanities majors. Teaching science to all entering students in a context where the humanities have historically dominated is our laboratory for the development of a curriculum that shows how science can be made accessible to people of all backgrounds.
"RIDGING BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE HUMANITIES General education seeks to develop students into well-rounded productive members of society, broadening student’s perspectives by exposing them to new ideas and a diversity of worldviews while giving them the tools to engage them. However, the physical sciences – important courses that teach critical thought and the process of experimentation – can
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
149
be quite peripheral or even absent from a general liberal arts education. Consequently, effective teaching of scientific ideas and the tools to understand them are often lacking in a general education. While colleges and universities are replete with elective science courses, students often do not take these courses because they feel they simply do not need them. Critical reports from the U.S. government such as A Nation at Risk [NCEE, 1983] and global reports such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS ; Gonzales 2004a,b] point out that American high school and college students severely lag behind their international counterparts when it comes to proficiency in mathematics and science [Gonzales, 2004 ; (NCEE), 1983]. This fact should be of concern not only to scientists, but to the nation as a whole. Insufficient science literacy makes students susceptible to deception and misunderstandings when presented with scientific findings or pseudoscientific data and creates a population unable to make critical decisions related to science and technology. In addition, when science is not well integrated into a general educated worldview, science can be easily misjudged as capable of taking the place of other modes of analysis ; in particular, it can be asked to generate rules for deciding right from wrong or fact from fiction, which it cannot do [Pollack, 2001].
)DENTIFYING THE BARRIERS There are many barriers preventing general education from bridging science and the humanities. The barriers include but are not limited to the enormous administrative changes required to create a novel core curriculum science course and recruitment of talented faculty to design and teach such courses. Here we consider some of the further barriers to incorporation of science education in undergraduate curricula and propose solutions from a new core curriculum course, Frontiers of Science, that we teach at Columbia University. There are at least three significant barriers to science literacy in the U.S. and abroad [Pollack, 2001] : 1. The cultural barrier of a general fear and antipathy to science in our society, 2. The political barrier of a misuse of general education, and 3. The academic barrier of resistance to change in the way science is taught. First, the cultural obstruction to science entering general education properly has to do with the way science is generally received by the public. According to popular press in the many news magazines, films, and television shows, scientists are typically portrayed as white-coated practitioners of a pagan religion. They obey their own arcane rules, and then only to be first to uncover a mystery of the universe that might be better kept hidden [Pollack, 2001]. But since these discoveries can lead to new products with important value, the public cannot totally disregard their efforts. Even a more positive view of this predicament does not motivate the public or new students to pursue basic science literacy, let alone careers in science. Public interest in science from this perspective is reduced to a dealing with unknown and misunderstood purveyors of consumable, if mysterious, technology. Instead of understanding how science works and how scientists think, the public is left with a black box for science and with no real method for understanding it’s contents. The second, political block to the introduction of science in general education is the misuse of general education to indoctrinate students instead of teaching them to think
150
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
critically. Such intellectual abuse sometimes begins with the notion that we are obliged to agree upon the high points of our culture and civilization, because together they define us as a nation or a culture. At other times it begins with the opposing wish to bring down the edifice of a national culture and replace it with the monuments of a set of approved subcultures. In either case, indoctrination does more harm than good and neither produces a well informed, scientifically literate public, nor a well educated graduate who has informed critically thinking ability, able to analytically evaluate information as it comes in from popular press, books, or people. Rather, poor science teaching misleads students to make them believe they understand science and scientific thinking when they have memorized a set of facts in a specialized content area. Another obstacle to science in general education is neither political nor cultural. It is the purely academic resistance to general education as such in many science departments. The essential properties of the science component of a solid general education curriculum, we’ve found to be interdepartmental, taught by practitioners of science (Ph.D. scientists directly involved in research), and offer students an opportunity to debate and discuss the philosophical, historical and methodological contexts of current research. By extension from our combined teaching experience we argue that the place of science in general education is to assure that science, and the ways scientists think, reason, and argue, become part of every student’s exercise in learning to think for themselves [Pollack, 1981]. It is essential that teachers know how to expose a future lawyer or political figure, military officer or school teacher to a dose of the scientific worldview, to help protect them from errors analogous to ones we would have made had we not been exposed to a good core curriculum in the humanities and in science. These are the errors of believing that political decisions can be made in the absence of clear observation, that irrational certainties can be used as reliable indicators of proper action, or errors that involved mishandling of scientific knowledge. To avoid propagating these and other abuses of science, science teachers and their students must learn what science is, how it is practiced, and how it connects to the large questions central to general education [Pollack, 2001]. Richard Feynman, the late great physicist of Caltech, in a 1955 address to the National Academy of Sciences on the importance of the fundamental link between the practice of science and the purposes of general education, said : It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom ; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed ; and to demand this freedom, as our duty to all coming generations. [Feynman, 1988 : 248] Science provides one important and historically successful way for us to understand the world in which we live. The scientific method is a term used to describe how scientists ask questions and search for their answers by using observations, inferences and testing. And yet the majority of the public, even those who are well educated do not understand the nature of science and the scientific method [McComas, 1998 ; (NCEE), 1983 ; Gonzales, 2004 ; O’Sullivan, 2000 ; Lederman, 2005].
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
151
3CIENCE LITERACY IN THE 5NITED 3TATES Science literacy is a necessary element of education in our modern science and technology driven society. It is crucial to teach science to all citizens, not only for those who actively and early choose careers in science. National Science Education Standards (NSES) exist to achieve this goal in U.S. educations system, but these were designed and implemented for grades K-12 [(NRC), 1996]. Both the NSES and education research suggest the best way for students to learn science involves authentic inquiry based classroom activities. Few college science teachers are aware of these standards and the breadth of published science education research, which remains a significant problem. Undergraduate college science teaching is predominantly taught using a transmission-reception method better known as the “I teach, you listen” approach. This is unsuccessful for many reasons and yet is still the pedagogical method of choice for most college professors. Examples of successful discipline specific college science teaching show implementation of inquiry based activities increases student achievement, even in large classrooms [Wright, 2002]. Current test scores demonstrate the failure of the U.S. general education systems to develop science literacy among students. Results from the latest TIMMS (2003) assessment show that U.S. fourth graders were outperformed in mathematics by their peers in eleven participating countries, including four Asian countries (Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, and Singapore) and seven European countries (Belgium-Flemish, England, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, and the Russian Federation ; Gonzales et al. 2004a). Similarly, U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed in mathematics by seven countries, including five Asian countries. Science results in the U.S. faired slightly better in 2003 with U.S. fourth-graders outperforming most countries except their peers in Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Singapore. However, fourth graders in 9 of the 15 countries that collected data in both 1995 and 2003 showed significant double-digit improvements in 2003 while U.S. scores declined. U.S. eighth-graders were further outperformed by their peers in seven countries in 2003. Overall, the TIMMS assessment shows U.S. 4th graders competing well enough in math and science, but by 8th grade they begin to fall behind, and additional results from high school students show the U.S. finishing dead last compared to other developed nations. These data are indeed worrisome since the difficulty of teaching science appears compounded by recent experimental data showing resistance to certain scientific ideas derive from assumptions and biases developed in early childhood and then persisting into adulthood [Bloom & Wiesberg, 2007]. Results such as those from TIMMS demonstrate the uphill battle educators face when attempting to solve the problem of science literacy among the general public. Other national assessment reports such as A Nation at Risk, underscore the need for drastic improvements in the way science is taught and learned in the United States (NCEE, 1983). According to the National Science Education Standards, scientific literacy is defined as “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity” (NRC, 1996). This is a reasonable goal to expect of students, especially those that graduate from college. In reality, very few students who attend college choose science or engineering as a declared major [Tobias, 1992]. The Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA demonstrated a significant decline (from nearly 12% to under 6%) in the percentage of freshman choosing to enter and remain in math and science based-majors [Astin, 1993 ;
152
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Seymour, 2002]. This means that the majority of students in college spend only a small fraction of their time in science classes, usually as non-majors. Educators are then faced with the problem of how to create a scientifically literate population when most students do not have adequate exposure to scientific thinking and concepts.
4HE PROBLEM OF SCIENCE LITERACY IN GENERAL EDUCATION In order to create a scientifically literate society, one has to go beyond calls for knowledge of scientific concepts and methods of scientific experimentation. At the core of scientific literacy is the understanding of the tenets of scientific inquiry and the nature of science [(NRC), 1996 ; AAAS, 1993]. The “nature of science” refers to the values and underlying assumptions that are intrinsic to scientific knowledge, including the influences and limitations that result from science as a human endeavor (Lederman and Lederman 2005). “Scientific inquiry” refers to characteristics of the scientific enterprises and processes through which scientific knowledge is acquired, including the conventions and ethics involved in the development, acceptance and utility of scientific knowledge [Schwartz, 2004]. A scientifically literate individual should be able to articulate and critically utilize all three categories ; the nature of science, scientific inquiry and traditional science content. To address the issue of increasing scientific literacy in college student populations (as well as potentially increasing recruitment and retention in the science majors), undergraduate institutions are implementing multidisciplinary introductory science courses that advocate the interdisciplinary nature of all physical sciences and actively involve the students in the discovery process as a way of learning the nature of science [McComas, 1998 ; Lederman, 1992 ; Borgwald, 1994 ; Meichtry, 1993]. Implementation studies of undergraduate science curricular reform typically describe modification of an existing course that is often from a specific content area, is geared for a specific student population (i.e. majors or non-majors), and is developed by one to several primary instructors (see [Knight, 2005 ; Norton, 1997] for good examples). These studies provide proof that the use of inquiry-based pedagogical techniques such as student participation in large lectures and cooperative in-class problem solving show significantly higher student learning gains when compared to traditional lecture-based teaching. Many studies suggest that the university must be open to the disposition of change and that science faculty need to be the agents of change in order to implement largescale science curriculum reform for all students at the university level [McIntosh, 1996 ; Krockover, 2002 ; Krockover, 2001 ; Stockstod, 2001 ; (AAPT), 1996]. However, there is limited literature on professional development for college science faculty [Lederman, 1999 ; Krockover, 2001]. This may be due to limited interaction between college science faculty who design and teach new curricula and the science education researchers who report case studies of implementation of new curricula [Ziedler, 2002 ; Duggan-Haas, 2000]. In order to address this gap it is imperative to publish studies that bridge these two disciplines. Only with dialogue between faculty and education researchers, between science and the humanities, can progress be made on the failure of science literacy in the age of science and technology. We hope to better understand the effects of inquiry-based pedagogy on teaching methodologies and teachers’ understanding and use of the nature of science and scientific
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
153
inquiry in the classroom [Crowther, 2005]. Understanding the implementation of curriculum as a political process and organizational change has the potential to create a dialogue among college science teachers. This dialogue is essential to the future education of American students in the sciences. Our contribution here will be to extend this dialogue between educators with discussion of a case study course, Frontiers of Science, at Columbia University. This case study is significant to both science faculty and administration of universities, as well as their educational research counterparts because it shows how faculty, without traditional pedagogical training, have been able to successfully develop inquiry-based lectures and activities for large classrooms while simultaneously learning new content and pedagogical methodologies.
3CIENCE EDUCATION AT #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY Science education at Columbia University in New York has had a varied history. Columbia University was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of King George II of England. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the state of New York and the fifth oldest in the United States. It has three schools for undergraduate instruction, Columbia College, the Fu Foundation for Engineering, and the School of General Studies (for nontraditional students). Columbia College is a small college within the large private research institution. In 1917, just after the U.S. entered WWI, Columbia created the “core curriculum”, a set of required courses for every graduate of Columbia College that introduces students to the great ideas of Western literature, art, music, and philosophy. For more than eighty years, the heart of the undergraduate experience at Columbia College has been its core curriculum and for many, it is a defining experience [Denby, 1993]. When we asked students during their first semester at Columbia why they chose Columbia over other schools, more than fifty percent responded, “because of the core curriculum”. Yet in the eight decades since its adoption, the core curriculum has neglected the essential contribution of Western civilization : science. Students spend a substantial part of their first years at Columbia College in small classes, reading and discussing primary works of literature, philosophy, history, science, and social and political theory, and studying fine arts and music. The core curriculum is designed to help improve each student’s ability to engage in the kinds of analytic, discursive, and imaginative thinking that prove indispensable in both subsequent education and later life. Courses use discussion, debate, writing, and direct interaction between instructor and student to achieve this goal. The first attempt to teach science in the humanities dominated core curriculum began in 1939, on the even of the U.S. entering WWII, with a course called Science A1. The texts for it were all from the current literature of science, except for an introductory narrative, “Matter, Energy, and Radiation”, written by a professor of physics, which was typed out by hand and mimeographed for distribution to the 500 men (Columbia College did not admit women until 1981) of Columbia College each fall. However, Science A1 did not survive in the core curriculum. Only recently in Columbia’s long history has there been a concerted effort to teach the nature of science, scientific inquiry and traditional science content to all students, ensuring that every graduate leaves the university scientifically literate. In 2003, Columbia science faculty created a new required core curriculum course, Frontiers of Science, designed to address science literacy
154
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
in a humanities focused educational institution. Frontiers was created in response to a need for incorporation of a common intellectual experience in the sciences for undergraduates, while also realizing that students should learn the analytical and quantitative tools that scientists use. It is clear that all students need the ability to critically examine scientific evidence if they are to make informed choices about pressing scientific, political, and societal issues – climate change, stem cell research, nuclear technology, transplants, the biology of the mind – and the problems that we cannot now imagine but will have to solve in the future [Kelley, 2006]. We treat Frontiers as a case study of specific methodologies for breaking down barriers to teaching science to non-scientists. Frontiers was initially designed as a pilot in the core curriculum for incoming freshman in the Columbia College in the fall of 2003. As it was the first real change in the core curriculum in over eighty years, incoming freshman were asked to volunteer to take the course and 279 students responded. The course was subsequently approved for a five-year pilot and in the fall of 2004, all incoming freshman (over 1000 students per year) were required to take Frontiers. We recently completed our third full year teaching Frontiers.
3CIENTI½C HABITS OF MIND In 1938, the American philosopher and educator John Dewey published a book entitled Logic : The Theory of Inquiry in which he coined the phrase “scientific habits of mind”. He characterized these habits as follows : (1) logical thinking (2) quantitative analysis (3) deductive reasoning (4) proper questioning (5) Reliance on sound evidence. These five scientific habits of mind make up the backbone of Frontiers. The nature of science was used as a foundation for development of Frontiers and is critical to understanding the design of the lectures and seminar activities. It is also at the heart of the faculty experience because it creates a common background where, regardless of content expertise, all faculty can exchange ideas and learn from one another by using their acquired scientific discipline or scientific habits of mind to communicate to one another. Co-director of Frontiers, David Helfand, developed a web-based text, Scientific Habits of Mind, centered on Dewey’s theory. This text (accessible at HTTP CCNMTLCOLUMBIA EDUPROJECTSMMTFRONTIERS) provides a unifying theme across the physical and life science components of the course. The skills scientists use every day are explained in easyto-read and often humorous language and include graph reading, estimation techniques, correlation and causation, proxies, experimental design, models, data analysis, sense of scale, descriptive statistics such as distributions, standard deviation and standard error, probability, feedbacks, and experimental bias. Students learn these skills by studying current research in fields such as conservation biology, neuroscience, global climate change, language evolution, astronomy, quantum mechanics, and evolutionary biology. While the specific frontiers of science (see the four example units below) provide the context for the course, the central emphasis of the course is on the scientific habits of mind. In short, Frontiers has two simple objectives. Firstly, it aims to disabuse students of the view that science is something that is simply memorized rather than a dynamic intellectual activity. Secondly, it aims to upgrade students’ basic quantitative and analytical reasoning skills. This is achieved by weaving scientific habits of mind through the course. Though the con-
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
155
tent changes from semester to semester depending on lecturer schedules and course content goals, the set of scientific habits outlined by Dewey remains invariant.
#OURSE ORGANIZATION Frontiers is designed so that professors give weekly lectures in their specific areas of content expertise. There are four senior lecturers per semester covering four distinct areas of content. Functionally, a Frontiers semester is organized into four units, two units of physical sciences and two of life sciences. Each unit is three weeks long and is framed by a central compelling question at the frontiers of science. For example, in the fall 2006 semester of Frontiers the four units consisted of : Unit 1 : Astronomy : What is our place in the Universe and is it unique ? Unit 2 : Climate system : Are humans changing the Earth’s climate ? Unit 3 : Evolution : How has DNA based information lead to the emergence of life and thought ? Unit 4 : Biodiversity : How will biodiversity loss affect life ? During a semester, each week begins with a lecture by a senior tenured faculty attended by half the first-year undergraduate class (> 500 students). This weekly lecture acts as a text for the course addressing the central question with data. A given semester may have a series of lectures by the chair of the Columbia astronomy department on cosmology, planet detection and scale in the universe ; by a Nobel laureate in quantum physics on quantum mechanics and nanotechnology ; by a National Medal of Science winner at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory on the causes and consequences of climate change, the human signal in climate records, and carbon sequestration and climate solution technology ; and by Columbia’s Howard Hughes professor of biology lecturing on the structure and function of the brain, neuro-plasticity, and consciousness. The content of lectures comes from peer-reviewed journal articles as well as areas of personal primary research. Supporting the lecture are weekly readings from the primary literature (i.e. Nature and Science), popular science press and news media. The faculty also meet weekly post-lecture to discuss upcoming lectures, review reading materials, design activities for seminars, and coordinate the many aspects of this multifaceted course. It is often necessary to also meet during the summer period when the course is not held, sometimes bi-weekly, to develop new lectures for new content areas. Being at the frontiers of science, the lecture material changes relatively frequently. Small changes are made to lectures from year to year, and the three-week units are rotated on a three-year time scale i.e. after three years of an astronomy unit, we may substitute a quantum mechanics unit. These changes however maintain the division of material into half physical sciences and half life sciences. The relationship between all content areas is the scientific habits of mind employed by scientists in each field. Lecturers make a point of emphasizing these overlapping scientific habits in each lecture so that lectures, regardless of content, map on to the required text, class exercises, readings, and assignments. All lectures are made available online as podcasts with both audio and visual files through a collaboration with Columbia’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning so that students as well as the general public have access to review past topics.
156
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
The heart of the course for the students is the weekly seminar. While the lectures provide the text for the course, the seminars provide an intimate environment (twenty students) to digest the lecture, the weekly readings, and to practice the scientific habits of mind. The seminars are taught by senior Professors and Columbia Science Fellows, postdoctoral researchers who are passionate about undergraduate education. Faculty traditionally teach one to two seminar sections per week and as do Columbia Science Fellows who are also primarily responsible for developing seminar materials. The seminars are very diverse in their form. They generally begin with a recapping of the main points of the lecture through a discussion, then follow with the reinforcing of those ideas and the ideas in Scientific Habits of Mind through the use of activities and case studies. These discussion-oriented seminars are where the important transfer of the nature of science, scientific inquiry, and traditional science content to students occurs. Knowledge transfer is accomplished using action oriented hands-on learning activities from interrupted case studies, to actual group experiments, to debates, to question/answer discussion of readings and lecture content. The use of case studies has been a very successful tool to engage the students and to teach important scientific habits of mind. Further successful seminar activities include the critique of news media articles from the New York Times and BBC while contrasting these media articles with scientific literature. Example course materials will be also available freely online in 2007 at Frontiers of Science Online (HTTP WWWFOS ONLINEORG), a collaboration with Columbia’s Digital Knowledge Ventures supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Material on the FoSO website will include podcasts, seminar activities and an overall users guide. We are also creating a discussion board for interested faculty to discuss their experience with the FoSO material and provide feedback, modifications and suggestions for alternative uses. The use of internal faculty discussion boards for the same purpose has been very successful at Columbia. We expect that the utility of the discussion boards will scale to the larger community addressed through FoSO. Frontiers faculty are also developing a series of process videos. For example, master teacher Deborah Mowshowitz teaches a seminar on how to teach a seminar.
4HE CHALLENGE OF FRONTIERS EDUCATION We acknowledge that the caution of generations of Columbia science faculty was well placed : teaching Frontiers is one of the largest educational challenges that our faculty has faced [Kelley, 2006]. One of the most unique characteristics of Frontiers is that every faculty member teaches every subject. Over the past two years we have taught stellar astronomy, planet detection methods, the biology of invasive species, biodiversity conservation, principles of evolution and DNA transmission, global climate change, human evolution, the anatomy and physiology of the brain and its relation to vision and language, the fundamental neural networks of the human body, quantum mechanics, Brownian motion, synaptic transmission and the influence of hormones, and more. While this can be disconcerting at first (to both faculty and students), the thrust is to demonstrate in the lectures, discussion, and class exercises, that mastering the Scientific Habits of Mind allows one to apply them to fields outside your expertise. With science literacy comes the ability to learn and understand new fields of inquiry. Most students respond positively to this approach,
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
157
and many say that they also learn by watching the way instructors approach a new scientific idea or question. Scientific fields, and the scientists who work in them, are becoming increasingly specialized. This specialization is necessary because of the vast amount of knowledge and rapid pace of discoveries in each field. However, specialization does not require that a geologist, for example, completely lose touch with current research in astronomy, chemistry or biology. The results from teaching Frontiers shows that the positive benefits are not relegated to students alone, but rather faculty become a more integral part of the learning process, beyond simple communicators of knowledge, they are in turn learning as well. Probably the largest challenge that faces faculty in Frontiers is dealing with the diversity of scientific literacy among first-year students, all of who are required to take the course. Our students range from nationally recognized science award winners to those with strong aversions to science for many reasons from religious, to political, to simple fear of mathematics. The challenge is to excite and engage across the whole spectrum of ability. Though this issue continues to be challenging, one novelty that has emerged is the creation of the optional Journal Club. The weekly Journal Club is designed to engage interested students at a deeper level not possible in seminars. The Journal Club covers one exciting discovery announced in a given frontier of science every week. These meetings are optional for students but are led by faculty in the course. The Journal Club gives students the opportunity to learn more about a given topic in the course, but probably more important is the chance to get to know other research scientists, to understand what they do, why they do it, and how. For example, one recent journal club was given by Professor Jaqueline vanGorkom on the evidence of the existence of dark matter provided by the collision of two galaxy clusters. Like the scientific process, Frontiers continues to innovate and change as the data shows a more fruitful path to integrate Frontiers research into the undergraduate experience. Frontiers is not a history of science, philosophy of science, or a science and society course. Its concern is in exposing students to the science that is taking place in the laboratory today. In addition to exposing students to research techniques, methodologies, and experimental design, we have also begun a summer research program where students from a recent Frontiers course are placed in a Columbia research scientist’s lab to learn the practice of doing science first hand. Similarly, to make sure students are exposed to as much actual science as possible, all instructors in Frontiers are active researchers. All instructors in the course have a Ph.D. in a relevant field of science. Scientific research, therefore, is built into the course from the beginning, not just through seminar activities, but by example through their instructors.
4HEORIES OF LEARNING The novel curriculum we use in Frontiers is very different than traditional science teaching because it aligns with nature of science and current supported science education reform movements. The Transmission Reception Method of teaching, though common in undergraduate education, is very unsuccessful for many reasons but is especially so in the science classroom [Lederman, 1999]. Conversely, situated learning theory (a theory of instruction) and the cognitive apprenticeship model (a model of learning based on situated cognition
158
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
theory) suggest skills may be acquired through authentic contexts and by communicating with peers and experts about those contexts [Duguid, 1989]. This is appropriate theory to use to describe the process of lecture development and seminar activities for the Frontiers course because the faculty used their own research data and expertise to develop context for the lectures that are given to the students. In cognitive apprenticeship students (in our case faculty) collaborate with one another under the direction of an expert instructor (also a faculty member) in both content and practice to work towards shared understanding of the topic being learned. This creates a culture of learning that allows faculty to process new concepts and information more thoroughly when multiple opinions, perspectives or beliefs must be accounted for across a group. It is also known that teachers learn from other teachers, both formally and informally through apprenticeship learning [FeimanNemser, 1993 ; Little, 1990 ; Lave, 1991]. Frontiers is a clear model of apprenticeship learning among faculty and between faculty and students.
4HE $IALOGUE BRINGING SCIENCE TO HUMANITIES EDUCATION How can we make sure that general education includes the teaching of science such that students finish a given science course with a broad scientific literacy ? The most direct way for outside granting agencies and governments to encourage science departments in universities and colleges to capture talented scientists for teaching in interdepartmental general education programs would be to pay them extra to do so. A precedent for such a subsidy exists. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Hughes Foundation help to cover the costs of faculty who are willing to take undergraduates into their laboratories for summer or term-time research. The NSF gives a grantee funding as a supplement to a regular research grant. What follows is a short list of additional recommendations for bridging the barriers to teaching science to non-scientists : t As we’ve done with Frontiers, training grants for PhD programs and for postdoctoral fellowships in the sciences should include a supplementary stipend for teaching non-scientists. In the Frontiers program these are in the form of Columbia Science Post-doctoral Fellowships with required teaching in Frontiers as well as research. t Practicing, funded lab scientists who are willing to put in the additional effort to teach non-science students ought to garner financial support for their research in exchange. This can be in the form of internal institutional grants or from outside funding agencies specifically targeted to fund such a program. t It is important that research scientists who teach in general education courses also be able to apply to their funding agencies for additional graduate student support to offset time spent teaching non-scientists. t Secondary school science teachers should be given the opportunity to spend a summer working in a research laboratory. At Columbia the Hughes Foundation supports such a program which has already sent dozens of high school science teachers back into the classroom with a new, strong, realistic commitment to teach science well with increased likelihood of successful translation of the nature of science to students.
Increasing Scientific Literacy in Undergraduate Education
159
t Similarly, courses designed to teach science to non-scientists, such as Frontiers, should assist interested students with placement in research labs so that any interest in science generated as a result of a successful course not be lost. In Frontiers we utilize the momentum from the course during fall and spring semesters to place top students in Columbia research labs during the following summer. Frontiers students are given the opportunity in the spring semester to apply for these competitive summer research positions with Columbia scientists to try out science in a lab experience for the first time. Preference is given to students not initially interested in science. This summer research program not only exposes students to actual laboratory science, but also encourages their interest with summer financial support and on-campus housing, making sure that we capitalize on the success of the course with the further motivation and hands-on experience important to inspire a future generation of scientists. t As we’ve done with Frontiers, we recommend placing the undergraduate science learning experienc in the students’ first year so that they have opportunities to take advantage of the science education throughout the rest of their undergraduate careers. Similarly for potential undergraduate research, locating the research experience in the first or second year also works to honor the students as they participate in the research endeavor. Further, it provides them with confidence to continue with scientific research. t It is critical to provide support for efforts to assess novel undergraduate experiences and courses and communicate those outcomes throughout the academic community. Such information is ubiquitous for K-12 education programs, but rare to nonexistent for undergraduate education. This is likely made more difficult because of lack of funding for assessment and dissemination. However, publication and dissemination of successful experiences is a critical component in transforming undergraduate education. We have proposed a series of potential solutions to address the problem of science literacy taken from a case study course, Frontiers of Science. However, Frontiers is just the first step in changing the culture at Columbia University and throughout the U.S. in regard to teaching science and intrinsically valuing science education. One way Frontiers is transforming teaching at Columbia is that faculty who teach in Frontiers take what they learn from their time with the program and integrate the lessons into their own courses. Hence, it has become a faculty training ground. Frontiers, however, is not the only step that has been taken to transform the teaching culture at Columbia. Another simple and effective example is the creation of a brownbag lunch on teaching. These lunches serve as opportunities for faculty to meet to discuss teaching issues and to learn from each other’s experience. According to the course website, Frontiers “both introduces students to exciting ideas at the forefront of scientific research and develops the habits of mind characteristic of a scientific approach to the world”. While focusing on current frontiers of science students become involved in the debates and questions central to their instructors research and delve deeper into the science behind the headlines in popular press. In a uniquely diverse nation such as the U.S., we have an obligation to preserve a flat field for discourse among
160
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
the many ethnic and religious groups who have come together as American citizens over the centuries. Bringing greater dialogue between the sciences and the humanities will ultimately provide for a better general education of the public. General education in science is the one obvious but largely untested way to show the next generation of global citizens that science is in fact open to people of all backgrounds.
2EFERENCES AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers) (1996) Powerful Ideas in Physical Science, Maryland, College Park. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1993) Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy : A Project 2061 Report, New York, Oxford University Press. Astin A. W. et al. (1993) The American Freshman : National Norms for Fall 1993, Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. Bloom P. & Weisberg D.S. (2007) “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science”, Science 316, 996-997. Borgwald J. M., Schreiner S. (1994) “Science and the Movies : The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of College Science Teaching” 23, 367-71. Brown J. S., Collins A. & Duguid P. (1989) “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning”, Educational Researcher 18, 32-42. Crowther D. T., Lederman N.G. & Lederman J.S. (2005) “Understanding the True Meaning of Nature of Science”, Science and Children 43, 50-52. Denby D. (1993) “Does Homer Have Legs ?”, The New Yorker 6, 52-69. Duggan-Hass D. et al. (2000) Science and Science Education Collaboratives : Where We Are, How We Got There, and Where We Are Going, Akron, Ohio, Annual Meeting of the Association for Education of Teachers in Science. Feiman-Nemser S. & Parker M. (1993) “Mentoring in Context : A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers”, International Journal of Educational Research 19, 699-718. Feynman R. P. (1988) What Do You Care What Other People Think ? : Further Adventures of a Curious Character, Leighton, R. (Ed.), New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 240-248. Gonzales P., et al. (2004) “Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003”, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Kelley D. (2006) “Breaking the Pyramid : Putting Science in the Core”, Diversity Digest 9, 2-3. Washington, DC, Association of American Colleges and Universities. Knight J. K. & Wood W. B. (2005) “Teaching More by Lecturing Less”, Cell Biology Education 4, 298-310. Krockover G. S. et al. (2001) “Action-based Research Teams : Collaborating to improve science instruction”, Journal of College Science Teaching 30, 313-317. Krockover G. S. et al. (2002) “Reforming and Assessing Undergraduate Science Instruction using Collaborative Action-Based Research Teams”, School Science and Mathematics 102, 266-84. Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991) “Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation”, New York, Cambridge University Press. Lederman J. S. & Lederman N. G. (2005) “Nature of Science Is”, Science and Children 43, 53-54. Lederman N. G. (1992) “Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science : A Review of the Research”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29, 331-59. Lederman N. G. & Niess M. L. (1999) “Training College Teachers”, School Science and Mathematics 99, 413-17. Little J. (1990) “The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching”, Review of Research in Education 16, 297-351. Mccomas W. F. (1998) “The nature of science in science education : rationales and strategies”, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Mccomas W. F., Almazro H., Clough M. P. (1998) “The Nature of Science in Science Education : An Introduction”, Science and Education 7, 511-32. Mcintosh W. J. (1996) “The Dynamics of Change in College Science Teaching”, Journal of College Science Teaching 26, 206-08.
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
161
Meichtry Y. J. (1993) “The Impact of Science Curricula on Student Views about the Nature of Science”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30, 429-43. NCEE (National Commission on Excellence in Education) (1983) A Nation at Risk : The Imperative for Educational Reform, A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Norton C.G. et al. (1997) “Reinvigorating Introductory Biology : A Theme-based, Investigative Approach To Teaching Biology Majors”, Journal of College Science Teaching 27, 121-26. NRC (National Research Council) (1996) National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC, National Academy Press. O’Sullivan C. Y. et al. (2000) The Nation’s Report Card : Science 2000, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Publishing Office. Pollack R. (1981) “From Theory to Praxis : Columbia can and should include science in the general education curriculum”, Columbia College Today 8, 21-24. Pollack R. (2001) “Some Practical Suggestions for Teaching Science in the Liberal Arts. Presentation to the Conference on the Unity of Knowledge”, Annals of N.Y. Academy of Sciences 935, 275. Schwartz R. S., Lederman N. G. & Crawford B. A. (2004) “Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context : An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry”, Science Teacher Education 88, 610-645. Seymour E. (2002) “Tracking the Processes of Change in US Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology”, Science Education 85, 79-105. Stockstod E. (2001) “Reintroducing the intro course”, Science 293, 1608-1610. Tobias S. (1992) Revitalizing Undergraduate Science : Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t. An Occasional Paper on Neglected Problems in Science Education, Tucson, AZ, Research Corporation. Wright R.B. & Boggs J. (2002) “Learning Cell Biology as a Team : A Project-Based Approach to Upper-Division Cell Biology”, Cell Biology Education 1, 145-153. Ziedler D.L. (2002) “Dancing with the maggots and saints : Visions for subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform”, Journal of Science Teacher Education 13, 27-42.
/RGANIZING #ROSS DISCIPLINARY $IALOGUE IN !CADEMIA $EBATING #OMPLEXITY AND /RGANIC $EVELOPMENT AT 3INGAPORE -ANAGEMENT 5NIVERSITY by Markus B. Karner
Here I describe the experience of setting up a discussion group involving members from a wide range of disciplines in the social and natural sciences. The overarching theme of the group is complexity theory, and the debates take place at Singapore Management University. In bi-weekly meetings, researchers from the fields of economics, management, political sciences, philosophy, religion, physics, and biology, discuss issues related to complexity, chaos, dynamical systems, evolution, and organic development. To foster cross-disciplinary understanding, the group chooses one scholarly article for each meeting to debate the oftentimes diverse meanings ascribed to both vocabularies and concepts across the research cultures. I describe our experience with the format of the group discussions, their challenges, and how to overcome them. Cross-disciplinary approaches often encounter practical limits because participants have to “step out” of their original fields of expertise and risk exposure to easy criticism when venturing into subject areas unfamiliar to them. At the same time, knowledge of analogous approaches across disciplines is essential for maximum knowledge distribution.
4HE GOALS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY DEBATE Specialization is a fact of modern day academic life. Real-world problems, however, usually require expertise that spans across disciplines. Building a commercial airplane involves fields ranging from propulsion engine engineering to the psychology of closed spaces. At the same time, different disciplines may find very similar methods useful for their purposes – statistics and general mathematics are used in all fields of science, and so are a host of other methods. There are, therefore, two areas of intersection between disciplines where interdisciplinary debate may yield fruitful exchange. The difference between the areas lies in the
Organizing Cross-disciplinary Dialogue in Academia
163
kinds of goals and utility of interdisciplinarity. Typically, researchers will collaborate in interdisciplinary research projects if the subject requires different kinds of specialists to solve a larger problem. Large research programmes that demand participation from a wide range of disciplines are usually broken up into specialist subgroups. This kind of interdisciplinary action falls into the category of “different approach, shared goal”. Less commonly but potentially just as significant, specialists will come together to discuss a method, an approach, a theory, or a philosophy, which they all have an interest in using for their own purposes. The specific use of any particular method across disciplines, however, does not guarantee equal methodologies, because methods usually require adaptation to the constraints at hand. Different disciplines therefore make different use of what superficially may seem like “all-purpose” tools. This opens the door to a second kind of interdisciplinary action, which falls into the category of “shared approach, different goal”, and it is this kind of debate that a group of people come together for in the “Complexity Group” at Singapore Management University (SMU). Interaction and cooperation between disciplines is actually not helped by the structure of academia. At the most basic level, the physical layout of Universities already separates the disciplines geographically. And research is usually published in what is called “specialist journals”, which tend to have a low tolerance for out-of-field contributions. This is ironic in view of the above observation that different disciplines often use similar tools and methods and should therefore be interested in sharing how to exactly use them. To alleviate these divisions and improve exchange in the expertise of using particular “all purpose” approaches, the least one can do is to create some form of cross-disciplinary debate. A debate forum has advantages and drawbacks with regard to more involved forms of interaction such as collaborative research. It is clearly the least intense form of interlock, it might not result in research papers, it might not even be particularly visible to the outside world. On the other hand, debate is also the freest form of interaction, with the least amount of definitive commitment by the participants, and therefore the most likely to foster the liberal exchange of ideas, and the creation of new ones.
4HE 3-5 #OMPLEXITY 'ROUP The SMU complexity group was founded in 2005 as a kind of academic talking club with the broad subjects of complexity theory, organic development, networks, dynamical systems, and philosophies of organization and interaction. What makes “complexity” so interesting for researchers across a wide gamut of disciplines ? In an increasingly cross-linked and networked world, if one kind of overarching theme or approach could be of interest across the sciences, it would be the study of systems. Complexity theory and its various roots and ramifications (chaos theory, network theory, emergence, etc.) attempt to describe the workings of nonlinear dynamical systems – systems where outputs are not proportional to inputs and where the interaction between components leads to seemingly unpredictable systems behavior. These systems are abundantly found in physics, biology, economics, society, politics, and increasingly as well in man-made engineering and computer software. The backgrounds of past and present members of the SMU complexity group by themselves already epitomize complexity : biology/ecology, eco-
164
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
nomics, information systems, physics, philosophy of religion, cognitive and neuroscience, sociology, political sciences, organizational studies, business. The group itself emerged spontaneously from personal interests and connections of researchers from the above disciplines. The structure of the group meetings has settled over time on a bi-weekly rhythm. This balances the needs for consistency and sufficient time to prepare the readings. One member proposes an article or a book chapter and distributes it to the other members for reading. The subject is usually close to the expertise of the proponent, and deals with some form of application of complexity theory. Members then have two weeks to read the text and to prepare comments. At the actual meeting, held in a comfortable lounge at a time slot when professional pressures are low for most, the attendees debate the merits of the paper for their own purposes, criticize it, give input to the other disciplines, and hopefully draw conclusions for their own work. After the meeting, the person best prepared to do so will write a short summary of the discussion’s contents and outcomes and distribute it by e-mail. The readings for future meetings are not set in advance, but usually crystallize during the debate itself – just by discussing a particular paper, members typically are already reminded of some research in their own fields that resonates with the subject at hand. Therefore, there is rarely a shortage in discussion subjects. If anything, at times an effort has to be made to change the direction of the discussions and to avoid going into too much detail about any single aspect. The fact that there is no attendance requirement puts the onus to secure attendance on the person who proposes a text for reading : he or she simply has to select something interesting enough to attract an audience. Similarly, there is a good recipe to prevent dissatisfaction with the readings being discussed : all it takes is to propose one that’s better ! Since the group is relatively small – about a dozen members, of whom on average, half attend for any given session – it is self-regulating and has worked remarkably well for over two years. The informal structure of this group goes a long way as well to tackle some of the more serious challenges that arise when organizing interdisciplinary debate. Most importantly, in an interdisciplinary setting, most participants will be like fish out of their water. While the overarching themes under discussion will be of general interest, the specific subjects will technically belong to a specialty foreign to most participants, one where the majority will not have a good literature background or first-hand experience. As a result, people will feel timid in expressing their opinions, and the higher their own academic position, the more timid they will be. In Asia, the cultural issue of never losing face, never be seen making mistakes, aggravates the situation. No one likes to look uninformed, especially in an academic setting where reputations are at stake. And yet, in an interdisciplinary debate it is imperative that participants listen, ask questions, and therefore occasionally appear uninformed. To overcome these challenges, a low-key setting with no public attendance, a small group size to ensure people get to know each other personally, and maybe surprisingly, little or no record-keeping, seem to help. Record-keeping has the potential to cement casual comments or mistakes into written and publicly available form – and this would mean a much higher psychological barrier for participation. For instance using online forums or group discussions would at first seem like a good idea – large numbers of potential participants, easy and cheap communications, no geographical barriers, even the advantage of having time to prepare written answers all should foster vibrant discussions. But such an online extension of the discussion was never accepted by this particular
Organizing Cross-disciplinary Dialogue in Academia
165
group. Even members who knew each other personally did not want to post on a bulletin board, or communicate on the subject by mailing list. At best they would use private person-to-person e-mail. Similar reluctance was found when group members were given the opportunity to create relevant online blogs. The reasons given for this unwillingness of writing anything down were quite straightforward and go back to the fear of being exposed and of having mistakes on written record. In addition, even restricted-access online activities could potentially be made public by accident, which again increases the reluctance of participants to post. While the outcome of each meeting’s debate is only summarily disclosed in a wrapup memorandum, its utility to the participants is great nonetheless. The group generates unique access to sources of information not normally in the radar of a particular person’s specialty. For instance, it familiarizes participants with a canon of literature that they would not otherwise have consulted, and so broadens their horizon. It also allows for access to the tacit knowledge of experts in alien fields, which is usually not published, and therefore not available to outsiders of a field, except precisely in this kind of private discussion. Finally, it makes for easy networking, which would otherwise not occur. The largest benefit is the simultaneous mixing of a much broader set of experiences and viewpoints in one single discussion, than would be encountered within any given specialty area. This immensely stimulates the creative spark to generate new ideas and concepts. My experience in organizing this complexity group suggests a number of surprising conclusions. First and foremost, people actually want to talk across disciplines. There is a genuine interest in sharing methods and ideas, and this in turn suggests that it is the institutional barriers and habitual separation of workspaces that keep people from different disciplines apart, and not a lack of interest. One could argue that people might sometimes simply be on the defensive, and attempt to show their own discipline’s importance or superior approach. But the overall feeling is one of genuine exchange. Every discipline somehow also starts to see its own limitations and how it may learn from parallel approaches to similar problems, using methods originally developed for a different field of science. Another important observation is that the use of vocabulary already shows a great diversity in approaches between the disciplines. The very same word, “complexity” for instance, can have vastly different meanings. To the social scientist, “social complexity” may mean organizational forms and routines, their relation to psychology and cognition, and goalseeking behavior. To the mathematician and information theorist, “computational complexity” may refer to non-computability or connection modes and densities in networks. To the biologist a “complex system” may mean adaptive behavior of living forms in an unforeseeable environment and the potential for emergence of new living forms through increasing connectivity. To the physicist “complexity” like to the mathematician suggests non-computable phenomena, even when the underlying causality is perfectly mechanistic, such as in turbulence. An engineer may specifically attempt to prevent any “complex systems” from arising at all in order to avoid emergence of unexpected behavior in highly complicated mechanisms or software. And to the philosopher a “complex system” with emergent behavior may elicit questions on the nature of causality. The different meanings that people across disciplines can ascribe to any single word or piece of research point at a major aspect of the usefulness of cross disciplinary debate. The same research can have different meanings depending on context, but the specialty
166
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
researcher usually only considers his own. Cross-disciplinary debate forces everyone to open up to other contexts and therefore, to other meanings. This in turn has great potential to expand the horizon of possibilities – it results in seeing familiar problems with someone else’s eyes.
#ONCLUSION As a conclusion, a small-group format of almost private discussion, loosely centered round a theme of common interest, with no public attendance and little written records, seems to have the highest chances of generating successful cross-disciplinary interaction. The benefits of such a format are a higher likelihood of candid discussion, deepening understanding of otherwise alien disciplines, generation of new ideas through exposure to different research cultures, and close-knit networking centered on a theme of common interest. Allowing for variations of the format to adapt it to different circumstances, I believe a successful cross-disciplinary debate is rather easily achieved in an academic setting if some basic principles of privacy are observed.
.EW )NITIATIVES OF THE 5NIVERSITY OF 4OKYO TOWARD %STABLISHING A 3TRATEGY FOR 3USTAINABILITY THROUGH +NOWLEDGE 3TRUCTURING AND A 4RANSDISCIPLINARY !PPROACH by Akimasa Sumi
A new program for establishing a sustainability science has been launched at the University of Tokyo. It consists of two initiatives, the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S) and the Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability (TIGS). The former is a network of universities and research organizations in Japan and the latter is a center for organizing and coordinating various disciplines at the University of Tokyo. The operating principles of these activities are an issue-driven approach and a transdisciplinary approach through knowledge structuring. Sustainability education is also a priority, with plans to establish a new curriculum and a network system of education.
#OMPARTMENTALIZATION The 20th century was a period of war and upheaval. Since World War II, the global population, crop production, and energy consumption have all increased dramatically. Besides these physical quantities, the sum total of our knowledge has accumulated in equally dramatic fashion. With this rapid expansion of knowledge, however, the scope of information comprehensible to each individual has become more limited. Now, one scientist often does not understand what is going on in his or her neighbor’s laboratory. This phenomenon of compartmentalization, poses the greatest obstacle to the initiation of new science. When we confront a real-life issue that demands resolution, we need to combine or integrate different disciplines to do so ; if the problem were one that could be handled by a single discipline, it would be solved more readily, sooner or later. Then, what of the 21st century ? We may all agree that it is impossible for everyone in the world to maintain their present lifestyle – that is, mass production, mass consumption and mass disposal – and that we must pay heed to the capacity of the environment. In short, we can agree in theory that the 21st century should be an age of peace and sus-
168
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
tainability. But how is this objective to be attained in practice ? And who is supposed to contribute to the process of attaining it ? If we wish to establish a new society, it will require new knowledge and techniques. However, when we encounter difficulties we tend to look to the past, and looking to the past is meaningful only if we do so to summarize past lessons and move forward from there. If we are to establish a sustainable society, it must be on a scientific basis. As the academic world has accumulated a vast store of knowledge, the academy should be utilized for this purpose. In other words, universities, research organizations, and intellectuals are responsible for the formulation of a science of sustainability and for establishing a sustainable society. This will not be an easy task, and there is no established way to go about it. We have to find a way to carry out this task by ourselves. Two new initiatives towards achieving this objective have been launched at the University of Tokyo. One is the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S), which is a network of universities and research institutes in Japan. The other is the Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability (TIGS), a new center at the University of Tokyo, which is responsible for coordinating and organizing activities to conduct new research toward the creation of a sustainability science. The activities of IR3S and TIGS will be explained below.
7HAT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY To achieve a sustainable society, we must redesign our present society to satisfy the constraints imposed by the environment. Therefore we need to understand the structure of the environment around us. The conduct of our individual daily lives is removed from a perception of the composite effects of human society on the natural system. In reality, we live in different sub-systems that comprise our environment. Our daily life is influenced by weather and climate – that is, we are very much influenced by the global natural system. However, we also need money – that is, we live in a socioeconomic system, which is also grounded in the natural system. At the same time, there is no value in thinking of the environment without thinking of the individual person. If we were to restrict the consumption of food, water and energy through the coercive exercise of authority, we might establish a society that seems to be sustainable. However, if the cost is such that the individual members of society are depressed and have no hope for the future, such a society would not deserve to be sustained. We cannot ignore the happiness of the individual. Based on our analysis of the environment around us, we suggest that it consists of three systems – a global natural system, a socioeconomic system, and a human system – and their mutual interactions [Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006]. It is crucial to a sustainable society that mutual interactions among these three systems be well balanced. In other words, environmental problems arise when this balance is perturbed. For example, global warming is caused by perturbation of the radiative energy balance on the Earth (see Fig. 1). Mass production, mass consumption and mass disposal may be considered a perturbation of material circulation. If we intend to achieve a sustainable society, we must restore this balance. The research conducted by TIGS is dedicated to this task.
New Initiatives of the University of Tokyo toward Establishing a Strategy…
169
Linkages among three systems Global system Climate system Energy and Resources Ecosystem
Low-Carbon Society
Global warming
Complex Problem
Infectious diseases natural disaster
Social system Politics Economy Industry Technology
Environmental Risk Management
Human system Mass production, consumption destruction
Security/Safety Lifestyle Health Norms and values
Resource-circulating society
Fig. 1 Tripartite system links.
)SSUE DRIVEN APPROACH AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH If we wish to restore balance to the interactions among these three systems, we must resolve the issues that currently perturb and threaten damage to this balance. Therefore, we have to take an issue-driven approach. Such an approach, however, often tends to emphasize the objective aspects of an issue – improvements in technology and social systems, for example. But subjective aspects – the human factor – must also be taken into account together with the objective aspects of the interactions among these systems. We would like to design a future society that maximizes the happiness of both present and future generations. However, the meaning of happiness may differ for each individual, as well as from culture to culture. These differences also need to be taken into account. How can we do this ? What does an issue-driven approach entail ? First we have to define an issue, then investigate and analyze the structure of the issue. Through this process we can identify the requisite areas of knowledge and their interactions and determine what knowledge is already available, and what needs to be further developed. To do this we try to survey and analyze the overall structure of the existing knowledge and its interrelationships, a process called knowledge structuring. (The process of analyzing issues is likewise called issue structuring). Next we have to organize scientists and engineers who have the knowledge required to resolve the issue. At the same time we must develop a method of integrating this knowledge. Critical to this integration process is the development of a transdisciplinary approach, that is, a method of coordinating different disciplines. There is no one established method, and research should be conducted on a trial-and-error basis. TIGS broadly categorizes its activities into five research domains, under which specific issues are further defined. These areas are briefly outlined below (Fig. 2).
170
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Fig. 2 Summary of Research Projects.
3CIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTAL FOR SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE For a transdisciplinary approach, the synthesis and integration of knowledge from different disciplines is indispensable. The University of Tokyo has expertise in numerical modeling and satellite remote sensing, and is the only university in the world with a sophisticated climate model. Results from this model (MIROC-hi and MIROC-med) are included in the AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). However, the present skill level of our model is limited. We need more regional information about future climate changes. Therefore the model is currently undergoing improvements and a general impact assessment model is being developed. Remote sensing data plays an important role in monitoring the present status of our environment. However, both the quantity and quality of data pose problems. We need to develop an algorithm based on physical principles for retrieving meaningful information from raw data and we must handle a vast quantity of data to integrate this information. Research on algorithm development and information technology for improved handling of large amounts of data is now underway. Information technology such as e-learning is another important element in the formulation of a sustainability science. This includes the establishment of high-end computing facilities, which will contribute to the development of better environmental models and of improved computer network and communication technology. The possibilities offered by the latter will fundamentally alter the dialogue between various stakeholders.
'LOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY ISSUES As mentioned above, the University of Tokyo has a sophisticated climate model used in the IPCC AR4, which means that high-resolution data in time and space is readily available to our researchers. Analysis of this data should provide more detailed information about the impact of global warming. Forecasting and backcasting technology can also be
New Initiatives of the University of Tokyo toward Establishing a Strategy…
171
developed using this model. The projected needs and potential sources of future energy are among the most important issues confronting us, and the role of biofuels and nuclear energy will be examined.
0OPULATION FOOD AND WATER ISSUES Populations are increasing everywhere in Asia except Japan. Hence food and water security is expected to be a critical issue in 21st-century Asia. There are two aspects to food and water safety : quantity and quality. With respect to quantity, some argue that there will be no problem in the 21st century because precipitation in Monsoon Asia is expected to increase. However, it is difficult to determine the actual future scenario for Monsoon Asia. We must investigate various scenarios and present a portfolio of options for the future. With respect to quality, it is difficult to ascertain the present condition of food and water in the region ; vast amounts of chemicals and fertilizers are being used, but there is no common standard for inspection. Thus standardization of inspection and open access to the data obtained are urgently needed. We would like to propose an international scientific initiative on food and water safety similar to the IPCC for global warming.
(ARMONIZATION BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS More than half of the vast population of Monsoon Asia lives in rural villages and is engaged in agriculture for its livelihood. Generally, the farmers are poor and are now tending to migrate to the cities, which are consequently growing. Most of the world’s mega-cities are located in Asia. In order to solve various environmental problems in the mega-cities, we must address the poverty issue in the villages ; otherwise, the one-way flow of inhabitants from rural to urban communities will never stop, rendering moot any efforts to solve mega-city problems. We must therefore treat urban and rural areas as a unified system with interacting components, and study methods for developing both sustainable cities and villages.
2ISK MANAGEMENT IN A MODERN SOCIETY In a modern society we are exposed to many risks. For example, many new viruses have been discovered since 1980. There is concern that new infectious diseases may appear with the advance of global warming. Human health is not simply a medical issue ; it is a complex problem that exemplifies the interaction between the human system and other systems. To address health issues, we must develop comprehensive policies that include restoration of the environment and improvement of the socioeconomic system. Another type of risk is geopolitical. For example, global warming may trigger or exacerbate tensions between neighboring countries ; conflicts may arise due to scarcity of water, food and natural resources. Therefore, various portfolios of options for action should be prepared corresponding to various potential future scenarios for social unrest.
%DUCATION Education is a primary function of universities and one means of achieving equity between generations. However, sustainability science has not yet been established as a discipline.
172
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Therefore we must first develop a curriculum for sustainability science. Training in communication skills and coordinating skills is also important. Educational experiments such as the Intensive Program of Sustainability (IPoS) are imperative as they enable students from different countries to lodge together and discuss specific topics with each other. Coordination among these research domains is emphasized because any given issue tends to be discussed within an existing framework. For example, mitigation of and adaptation to global warming tends to be discussed from the standpoint of energy use and the increase in greenhouse gases, with material circulation rarely taken into consideration. Conversely, when we consider recycling, we tend to forget about energy efficiency. When we propose policies for future society, we must consider global warming, material circulation and biodiversity. Otherwise, a particular action will only generate new problems from other points of view. Food and energy issues arising from the recent advance of biofuels is one example. Another is globalization, which should not be defined as making the world into one uniform society. The world consists of many regions with a diversity of cultures and lifestyles. It is critical to develop a framework that permits the coexistence of regional diversity. Globalization and regional diversity can be approached, for example, through a discussion of food culture, in which natural scientists, social scientists and historians participate. Finally, we have to find ways to understand each other. When we try to establish a dialogue we often feel uneasy because our ways of thinking are different. Sometimes we make judgments without understanding one another. Criticizing others is a trap into which we tend to fall when we are confronted by challenging situations. In order to overcome such situations, continuous dialogue is necessary, and tolerance is an indispensable tool to avoid such traps.
#ONCLUSION IR3S and TIGS are initiatives by the University of Tokyo that attempt to pursue a new paradigm, a sustainability science. Such an effort requires integration among the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. A university such as the University of Tokyo is an ideal place for this sort of interaction because a wide range of scholars and researchers work there. However, many academics are still content to work within the comfortable confines of their own field. In order to break down the walls between these compartments and promote interaction, concrete activities and person-to-person contact are necessary, and these can only be achieved through tangible projects addressing specific issues. Although there is no guarantee of success, we are resolute in our determination to undertake this task see [Komiyama and Takebuchi, 2006]. We believe that without taking risks, there is no chance for success, and that the academy should be at the forefront of this effort.
2EFERENCE Komiyama, H., Takeuchi, K. (2006) “Sustainability science : building a new discipline”. Sustainability Science 1(1),1-6.
"2!).ETWORK AN %XPERIMENT IN 4RANSDISCIPLINARITY by Zalina Ismail
The objective of this paper is to present transdisciplinarity as a framework for research that progresses from the fundamental to the translational and finally to action research that benefits the community. We present a model developed in Universiti Sains Malaysia that transcends disciplines but is focused on a common goal.
4OWER OF "ABEL Looking for new solutions to old problems is an adage that might describe a lot of research that is conducted in an academic setting. Research can also be a bit like looking for the elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ! Everyone seems to be looking at the same problems but everyone seems to be talking in a different language and often research in Universities can be likened to the new “Tower of Babel”. How can the intellectual capabilities of academia be effectively harnessed and successfully incorporated into research projects that can result in research outcomes that are meaningful in practice ? Clearly there is dissatisfaction with current research models and addressing the problem requires a reassessment of the needs within the University and also in the real world. Perceptions that universities are ivory towers out of touch with the real world are becoming an issue and there is a need to develop new models that are institutionally specific yet able to incorporate the different perspectives of researchers from diverse backgrounds in the humanities as well as the sciences. In many institutions, research in the humanities and sciences is conducted along well-demarcated lines that too often do not cross at all. Whenever the two did work together, it was always within the concept of interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity. There have been attempts to bridge the divide, but these have never gone beyond the “additive” nature of interdisciplinarity or the “interactive” nature of multidisciplinarity. Both the humanities and the sciences still remained within their own
174
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
boundaries and the security of their individual “comfort zones”. Are there new research approaches and methodologies that might shed light on the challenges of translational research, that can bridge the divide between the humanities and the sciences ? Is it possible to embrace diversity and difference without losing sight of the original idea that the research that attracts society’s investment is supposed to be translational and benefit the community ? The objective of this paper is to present transdisciplinarity as a framework for research that progresses from the fundamental to the translational and finally to action research that benefits the community. We present a model developed in Universiti Sains Malaysia [USM] that transcends disciplines but is focused on a common goal (see Fig. 1). To do this, I will first define transdisciplinarity and differentiate it from other modes of working across different disciplines in the context of our University. From this basis, I will examine how a transdisciplinary approach offers new pathways to research, particularly within the socio-cultural context of a Malaysian University. This will be supported by the description of an actual long-term research project of transdisciplinary nature that is currently being conducted in our University.
Learning in formal and informal educational settings
Clinical brain research as a foundation for research on human learning
Neuroplastic Curriculum©
Learning in complex educational systems
Fundamental research on behavioral, affective cognitive and social aspects of learning
Fig. 1 Research Concept. This program seeks to capitalize on important developments in the field of neuroscience and its relationship to human learning and education. It is structured as a four-quadrant continuum that includes 1) brain research as a foundation for research on human learning ; 2) fundamental research on behavioral, cognitive, affective and social aspects of human learning ; 3) learning in formal and informal educational settings ; and 4) research on learning in complex educational systems.
The research proposal seeks to coordinate the four quadrants of research and to find a common ground where issues arising from neuroscience research and educational practice can be reconciled, and hypotheses generated in one area may be tested and refined in others.
4RANSDISCIPLINARITY IN THE CONTEXT OF 5NIVERSITI 3AINS -ALAYSIA The University has a rich and varied source of expertise in various disciplines. It is an ideal place for the development of transdisciplinary research and a rich source of new ideas. However, the division of knowledge along the lines of the “humanities” and the “sciences”
BRAINetwork : an Experiment in Transdisciplinarity
175
is a strong force in the world of scientific research within the University community. This division has become an almost immutable aspect of our education and research culture such that the teaching – learning program, the administrative machinery and the research program in the University exist within a framework of “disciplinarity”. While this is not necessarily a disadvantage, we realized that the strong imprint of “disciplinarity” was an obstacle that needed to be overcome if research was to be conducted within the framework of transdisciplinarity. The concept of transdisciplinarity can be interpreted in different ways depending on the context and perspective in question. At USM, we believe that the university as a knowledge-based organization must provide evidence-based solutions to a range of social, ethical and material problems. Our emphasis on sustainable development and dependence on science and technology requires that research-based solutions are not limited to a single viewpoint but cut across disciplines. The need for cooperative research is imperative, given that the complexities of current global issues and problems can no longer be solved in isolation within the limitations of individual disciplines.
0OSSIBILITIES LIMITATIONS AND REALITIES OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH In our University, the neurosciences have been identified as one of the more important areas of research where it is anticipated that many new ideas, concepts and discoveries are likely to emerge. The most important finding made in the field of neurobiological research has been the demonstration of the plasticity of the human brain and the discovery that neuronal and synaptic connections in the human brain can be altered depending on the utilization of the brain. In many parts of the world, this has led to the emergence of collaboration between cognitive neuroscience and education in an effort to construct optimal conditions for lifelong learning. However, in USM, the neurosciences are seen to “belong” to medicine. The focus in the neurosciences has always been in terms of medicine and all interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research was geared towards solving a medical problem. The “medicalization” of the brain has made it difficult to envision research designs that are responsive to community needs that transcend the discipline of medicine. At USM a research-based cluster called BRAINetwork was created in an attempt to address this issue of transdisciplinary research in the neurosciences. The fundamental aim of BRAINetwork (an acronym for Brain Research And Information Network) is to reassess research methodology within USM and initiate novel collaborations in fundamental and translational brain research involving both the humanities and the sciences. However, the main challenge to the BRAINetwork research project in the university is not only the increasing dichotomy between the humanities and the sciences but also the increasing separation of disciplines into numerous sub-disciplines and sub-specialties. At the same time there is also an increasing disconnection between the fundamental sciences and applied research, which can lead to fragmented ideas that make us less able to find solutions to complex problems. The main issue to be resolved was that transdisciplinarity had to thrive within the context of a discipline-based academia and a mindset that had difficulty in finding a framework within which to conceptualize transdisciplinarity. Our ally was the commitment of the university in promoting transdisciplinarity and our strategy was to increase awareness and develop programs to bridge this psychological gap.
176
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
The first step in the move towards transdisciplinary research was done via a workshop that sought to inform, engage and inspire researchers from the sciences and humanities to work together towards finding a solution to a common problem. The program of the workshop was based on three fundamental ideas : t Nicolescu’s transdisciplinary model of learning [Nicolescu, 2004]. t The report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty first Century, chaired by Jacques Delors, which strongly emphasizes four pillars of a new kind of education : learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together with, and learning to be [Delors, 1996]. t Huther’s theory of the compassionate brain which amongst other things concludes that the human brain is a social construct which is a self-organizing, open system, characterized by an enormous degree of experience-dependent plasticity [Huther, 2006]. A post-workshop assessment indicated that researchers were aware of transdisciplinarity but still assessed achievements by criteria specific to their own discipline. Tensions were detected between scientific methodology and the philosophical viewpoint of the humanities. Our response was a reassessment of strategy to incorporate a focus on community outreach programs as well. Since community needs are always transdisciplinary, BRAINetwork now aims to let desired community outcomes drive the process towards transdisciplinarity in brain research. As a result of this workshop and the several discussions that followed, BRAINetwork decided to apply a transdisciplinary approach in order to make an important contribution to the concept of neuroplasticity and education.
4HE "2!).ETWORK %XPERIMENT IN 4RANSDISCIPLINARITY 0ROBLEM STATEMENT Advances in the neurosciences indicate that the brain is a dynamic organ, shaped by experiential learning. It is malleable and can be rewired according to the stimulus it receives. The current educational system is a “one size fits all” concept that does not take into account that the brain is neuroplastic and that individual brains process information differently. There is no screening process for assessing neurodevelopmental status of learning ability. Neither is there a system in place to cater for these different learning approaches. There is a need to utilize this information to create a learning environment that is based on the concept of a neuroplastic brain, can cater to various learning abilities and at the same time is socio-culturally relevant and works in parallel with the existing curriculum.
/BJECTIVE OF THIS RESEARCH PROJECT The BRAINetwork research proposal works towards a better understanding of t how the brain processes information ; t learning processes over the individual’s lifecycle. The projects in this research proposal are transdisciplinary in nature. They aim to synthesize existing and emerging findings from the neurosciences, to bring together
BRAINetwork : an Experiment in Transdisciplinarity
177
researchers from the neurosciences, education, sociology, architecture, information technology, fine arts and management, and to stimulate the exchange of knowledge and the application of this knowledge to education from early childhood through adolescence. BRAINetwork hopes to interpret these findings into a cohesive entity in an educationally relevant setting in order to formulate a neuroscientific approach to learning via the Neuroplastic Curriculum©.
!NTICIPATED 2ESEARCH /UTCOMES 1. Discovery and description of neural, cognitive, affective, and conceptual learning processes required for learning via the neuroplastic curriculum©. 2. Better understanding of how primary and secondary school content knowledge and pedagogy relate to the implementation of innovative and effective curricula, materials, and assessments. 3. Development of research-based learning tools, pedagogical approaches, and materials that enhance neuroplastic education at all levels. 4. Development and refinement of new education research and evaluation methods. 5. Increase the research capacity of the field, especially the development of new researchers and research-oriented education practitioners in line with the role of USM as a research university. 6. Collect, analyze and use data to inform researchers, decision-makers and the general public. 7. Understand the factors and the approaches that will enhance the full participation of all Malaysians in brain-based learning. 8. Expand the knowledge of learning, teaching and organizational models that lead to substantial and large-scale improvement in the efficiency, efficacy, and costeffectiveness of the Malaysian educational system.
/VERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS WITHIN THIS RESEARCH PROPOSAL The BRAINetwork proposal consists of 5 separate but integrated projects led by several researchers (see Fig. 2). Each project looks at different aspects of the whole but works closely with the other modules of the network so that overall, it is part of one coordinated and coherent body of work. Researchers use different research strategies and forms of validation in order to develop hypotheses and conduct research across projects.
0ROJECT -OBILE "RAIN ,ABORATORY BRAINetwork’s first project examines implicit learning in cognitive, linguistic, and social domains in young children and adolescents. This project is an essential component in understanding how people learn, and has direct and important relevance for learning in informal and formal environments. This project will screen for learning abilities such as dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and autism and will also serve to validate and develop hypotheses arising from other projects.
178
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Fig. 2 Summary of Research Projects.
0ROJECT $ESIGN OF A 3OCIO #ULTURALLY 2ELEVANT "RAIN &RIENDLY ,EARNING #ENTRE BRAINetwork’s second project focuses on the design of a high-quality learning environment designed for neurobiological learning and transfer. The design will be approached in a transdisciplinary manner comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social, organizational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral to the experience of place.
0ROJECT $EVELOPMENT OF AN ELECTRONIC PERSONALIZED LEARNING OBJECT REPOSITORY There are many types of learners such as visual learners, auditory learners and tactile learners. In addition there are many with learning disabilities such as dyslexia and ADHD. Yet the standard curriculum is designed to be “one-size-fits-all” and this is disadvantageous to a large proportion of students. BRAINetwork’s third project aims to develop a learning
BRAINetwork : an Experiment in Transdisciplinarity
179
management system as well as a database of learning objects that can be adapted to all the different types of learning styles. The aim is to design and create a workable electronic method to differentiate and individualize the learning process via automatically generated learning plans.
0ROJECT ,EARNING MEMORY AND SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY IN A TRANSGENIC MOUSE MODEL OF DOPAMINERGIC DYSFUNCTION There are many aspects of learning behavior that can be studies only in an animal model. This particular model is a transgenic mouse model that allows specific targeted assessment of the dopaminergic reward system. This system is implicated during the learning process. However, as it is also implicated in various learning disabilities such as ADHD, autism and dyslexia, this model is a valuable tool that can provide information on how various brains process learning and the effect that neuroplasticity has on various brain models. The animal study is important for testing the various theories developed by the other projects and to see the impact of different learning strategies on neuronal growth and development.
0ROJECT %MERGING ETHICAL ISSUES IN NEUROSCIENCE AND POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR EDUCATION Neuroethics is a relatively new branch of bioethics that is an important aspect of all research related to the brain/mind interface. It is particularly important to be aware of the ethical issues when the research involves learning and the developing brain. However, in Malaysia, as yet there are no recognized guidelines and criteria for good practice. This project aims to engage the community to frame the relevant guidelines that would help shape the Neuroplastic Curriculum©.
2ESEARCH METHODOLOGY Project 1, 2 and 3 require a strong working relationship with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education. One primary school and one secondary school each in a rural and an urban area will be identified to provide the necessary subjects during the initial phase of developing the Neuroplastic Curriculum©. These schools will assist in providing : t test subjects for assessment of brain function : information, assessment, screening and intervention ; t an environment that can be modified to reflect a brain-based learning environment ; t teachers who will undergo training in brain-based learning strategies and assess the use of the electronic learning repository in developing lesson plans based on a Neuroplastic Curriculum©. Project 3 requires access to a computer laboratory and also access to teachers as mentioned above.
180
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
Project 4 is laboratory-based. This project utilizes transgenic mice in an animal neurobehavioral laboratory and will test specific learning theories and their relationship to neuronal growth and development. Project 5 will engage relevant groups such as non-governmental organizations, religious organizations, lay persons and bioethics specialists via workshops and seminars held throughout the country. The end-point would be in the development of a guideline in neuroethics that is socio-culturally relevant to Malaysia.
! PROPOSED MODEL NEW PATHWAYS TO RESEARCH Recent advances in neurobiology have made it easier to study brain function in live healthy humans and clearer links are being drawn between our physical and emotional functioning and specific areas of the brain. Clinical progress in diagnostics and therapeutics of various brain disabilities has also broadened our understanding of the normal human brain. The boundary between brain and mind is becoming increasingly blurred and this has tremendous implications in the use of physical interventions to improve and enhance memory and cognition. Contrary to previously held concepts that learning occurs at specific periods of the brain’s development, there is evidence that both the developing and the mature brain are structurally altered when learning occurs. Studies have found that direct contact with a stimulating physical environment and an interactive social group can alter the structure of nerve cells and of the tissues that support them. In short : the brain architecture is malleable ; it is neuroplastic and can be reshaped according to the stimulus it receives throughout the entire lifetime. It can be reconstructed and rewired according to the stimulus it receives. Learning is thus a lifelong process that involves the continuous development of new pathways and circuitry within the brain. BRAINetwork aims to use this concept of neuroplasticity to create new, powerful paradigms for education : utilize cutting-edge discoveries in neuroscience to discover the influences of emotions, gender, culture and the arts on learning and to assess potential benefits and pitfalls of using pharmacology, technology and clinical interventions to boost brain performance. BRAINetwork will propose a Neuroplastic Curriculum© which utilizes educational and clinical interventions to screen for learning abilities and suggest brainbased learning strategies which work in parallel and integrate with the existing curriculum, utilizing the neuroplasticity of the brain to promote the learning process from early childhood until adolescence.
#ONCLUSION The project activities of this research proposal are centered on learning with five transdisciplinary and international projects co-coordinated by BRAINetwork USM in collaboration with our international collaborators. This research proposal aims to increase the collective understanding of the applications of cognitive neuroscience to education. It will enable the development of a novel educational theory via the Neuroplastic Curriculum©, aid in the acquisition of fundamental competences and address recurring educational problems and difficulties.
BRAINetwork : an Experiment in Transdisciplinarity
181
We are only at the beginning of our experiment in transdisciplinary research. While we do face problems, they are largely due to a mindset that is deeply entrenched within the concepts of interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. However, to the credit of our researchers, there has already been a gradual paradigm shift in understanding, communication and collaboration. We have made some progress in understanding the existence of different methodologies and the multiple realities of the different disciplines. Along the way, BRAINetwork now has the necessary human resource and the political will to transTable 1 Transdisciplinary themes within this research proposal. Implications for policy change within the educational system. Transdisciplinary themes
Existing knowledge base
Research questions
Policy issues
t The brain is neuroplastic and can be reconstructed and rewired according to the stimulus it receives.
t Early learning provides the necessary foundation for further learning throughout the lifespan. t Learning is a life long process that involves the development of new pathways and circuitry within the brain. t The environment, emotions, gender, culture and the arts can influence learning.
t What are the neurobiological mechanisms that form the basis of learning ? t How can the school curriculum be enhanced to reflect the ability of the brain to learn throughout the lifespan ? t What kind of environment facilitates brainbased learning ? t How can learning be made relevant within the sociocultural context of the learner.
t Resource allocation for brain-based education. t Teaching methods via the neuroplastic Curriculum©. t Structure of the learning environment s Training of educators.
t Learning is a result of interactions at the brain/mind interface.
t Screening for the early detection of brain-related disabilities can help improve ability to learn. t Clinical and health interventions can boost learning abilities.
t How effective are clinical and health interventions ? t Can clinical interventions help improve learning abilities ?
t Screening for learning disabilities in all primary schools. t Allocation of resources for a “brain profile” of all schoolchildren.
t There are individual learning differences and abilities across the life span.
t Learning differences are the result of epigenetic and genetic changes. t Learning differences are related different types of intelligences. t Motivation and the reward system have a powerful impact on learning.
s What is the neurobiological basis of motivation and the reward system ? s How can we utilise multiple intelligences to stimulate learning and neuronal growth ? s What are the ethical implications of manipulating the intelligence ?
t Individualised education within the public education system. t New learning methodologies based on a neuroplastic curriculum©. t Appropriate learning tools for various learning abilities. t National guidelines for neuroethics.
182
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
late these multiple realities into a cohesive framework for transdisciplinary research. We are still very much an experiment in progress, but the indications are that we will be able to reach the goal of making a groundbreaking contribution towards a new brain based pedagogy via the Neuroplastic Curriculum©. We hope to be able to effect policy changes within the Malaysian educational system (see Table 1). Relevant findings will be developed into larger studies investigating their applicability to education and should lead to new, brain-based, teaching methods that can coexist with the existing curriculum. Along the way, we hope that this BRAINetwork project will encourage transdisciplinarity as a new pathway for researchers who wish to remain relevant in the 21st century.
2EFERENCES Delors, J. (1996) Learning : the Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commision on Education for the Twenty-first Century, Paris, UNESCO Publishing. Huther, G. (2006) “Neurobiological approaches to a better understanding of human nature and human values”. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, Vol. 2(2), 331-343. Nicolescu, B. (2004) “The transdisciplinary model of learning, perspectives on university education in the 21st century”, First International Congress on University Education, Istanbul, Fatih University, 104-106, (available on the web site : HTTP WWWEDUFATIHEDUTR INDEXPHP TASK AUTHOR).
/THER RECOMMENDED READING MATERIAL Alderson, P. (1998) Ethical and social aspects of genetics and neuroscience : the Wellcome proposals. Bulletin of Medical Ethics 136, 20-21. Baloian, N., Pino, J.A. and Motelet, O. (2003) “Collaborative Authoring, Use, and Reuse of Learning Material in a Computer-Integrated Classroom”, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. Bennett, K., Diaz, V., McArthur, D. and Metros, S. “The Promise and Pitfalls of Learning Objects : Current Status of Digital Repositories”, (HTTP WWWEDUCAUSEEDUASPDOCLIBABSTRACTASP )$ .,)). Brain Research and Education : Fad or Foundation ? (HTTP WWWPATWOLFECOMINDEXPHP PID ). Brain-based learning (HTTP WWWFUNDERSTANDINGCOMBRAIN?BASED?LEARNINGCFM). Butcher, J. (2003) “Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns”. Lancet, 362(9378), 132-133. Canli, T., Amin, Z. (2002) “Neuroimaging of emotion and personality : scientific evidence and ethical considerations”, Brain & Cognition 50(3), 414-431. Caulfield, J., Kidd, S., and Kocher, T. (2000) “Brain-based instruction in action”, Educational Leadership 58 (3), 62-65. Check, E. (2005) “Brain-scan ethics come under the spotlight”, Nature 433(7023), 185. Choi, B. C., Pak, A. W. (2006) “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy : Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness”, Clin. Invest. Med. (6), 351-64. Clemons, S. (2004) “Developing on-line courses for visual/kinesthetic learners : A case study”, The International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(11), 1-13. D’Arcangelo, M. The Brains Behind the Brain in Educational Leadership, (HTTP WWWASCDORGPUBLICATIONS ED?LEADDARCANGELOHTM). Eisenberg, L. (1995) “The social construction of the human brain”, Am. J. Psychiatry 152 1563-1575. Gindro, S., Mordini, E. (1998) “Ethical, legal and social issues in brain research”, Current Opinion in Psychiatry 11(5), 575-580. Greenfield, S. A. (2005) Biotechnology, the brain and the future, Trends in Biotechnology 23(1), 34-41. Gurian, M. and Stevens, K. (2004) With boys and girls in mind, Educational Leadership, 62(3), 21-26. How Can Research on the Brain Inform Education ? (HTTP WWWSEDLORGSCIMATHCOMPASSVNBRAINHTML) In Search of Brain-based Education (HTTP WWWPDKINTLORGKAPPANKBRUHTM)
Societal Responsibility of Universities. Wisdom and Foresight Leading to a Better World
183
Koohang, A., Du Plessis, J. (2004) “Architecting usability properties in the e-learning instructional design process”, International Journal on E-Learning 3(3), 38-43. Kotilinek, L. A. et al. (2002) “Reversible Memory Loss In A Mouse Transgenic Model Of Alzheimer’s Disease”, J. Neurosci. 22[15], 6331-6335. Lackney J. A. (2004) “12 design principles based on brain-based learning research”, DesignShare : The International Forum for Innovative Schools. (HTTP WWWDESIGNSHARECOM2ESEARCH"RAIN"ASED,EARNHTM). Marinova, D., McGrath, N. (2004) “A transdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning sustainability : A pedagogy for life”, in Seeking Educational Excellence, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 9-10 February 2004. Perth : Murdoch University. (HTTP LSNCURTINEDUAUTLFTLFMARINOVA HTML). Moretti, et al. (2006) “Learning and Memory and Synaptic Plasticity Are Impaired in a Mouse Model of Rett Syndrome”, J. Neurosci. 26 [1], 319-327. Neurobiolgocial Theory of Mind (HTTP SEARCH Q CACHE $O*-PK6:K* WWWITMBMEHUKTKORAK OLVASOSZEM4OM-APPINGPDF .EUROBIOLOGICALHL EN). Neurobiological Basis of Learning Disabilities (HTTP SEARCH Q CACHE F%JILR79* WWWLDAC TAACCA ENGLISHRESEARCHNEUROBIOPDF .EUROBIOLOGICAL "ASIS OF ,EARNING $ISABILITIESHL EN). Owen, E. H. et al. (1997) “Assessment Of Learning By The Morris Water Task And Fear Conditioning In Inbred Mouse Strains And F1 Hybrids : Implications Of Genetic Background For Single Gene Mutations And Quantitative Trait Loci Analyses”, Neurosci. 80, 1087.
+NOWLEDGE #ULTURE AND )NTERDISCIPLINARY $IALOGUE by Ravi de Costa
This paper sets out the views and experiences of interdisciplinary research held by an “early-career-stage” social scientist whose work has predominantly been in the areas of colonialism and culture. The author emphasizes a dimension probably not central to most understandings of interdisciplinarity, the ethical and political. In particular, he draws on his research on indigenous peoples to suggest that narrow or segmented traditions of knowledge production have marginalized peoples deemed as “primitive” and have imposed upon them the norms and policies of dominant European societies. Using this approach, the paper goes on to offer three categories for thinking about the motivations that underlie dialogues between disciplines and traditions of knowledge production : an ethical approach, a limits-of-method approach, and a problem-based approach. The paper concludes with an argument that a comprehensive dialogue – whether in the context of a research project or in the design of research institutions themselves – will be one that makes space for a variety of approaches.
4RADITIONS For me, dialogue between the many traditions of human thought and knowledge is a crucial feature of the world we live in. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the sharp separation of types of human knowledge is at the basis of some forms of injustice today. I take this view based upon my own research on the contemporary effects of European colonialism. The diaspora of Europeans – not just individuals and communities but also their ideology, institutions and biota – wrought havoc with many non-European peoples. Where Europeans formed majorities, as in the settler states of North America and Oceania, and in parts of Latin America, many distinct indigenous peoples or their cultures were erased in overlapping waves of dispossession, disease, and assimilation.
Knowledge, Culture and Interdisciplinary Dialogue
185
Knowledge, and in particular, knowledge of humans’ relationships to the natural world, has been important in all of the historically recorded processes of colonization and resistance. For example, colonialists drew on the moral and political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to legitimize the usurpation of indigenous territories. They assumed that indigenous people had no practices of cultivation or environmental agency and therefore could not be considered to have property. This view has become entrenched in settler and now Western worldviews, which predominantly see undeveloped lands and the peoples who live on them in sustainable ways as wasteful. By contrast, the resistance and solidarity of indigenous peoples draws directly from traditions in which lands and all the beings in them have agency, creating worldviews which, although frequently cast in spiritual terms, emphasize collective responsibility through material interconnection [de Costa, 2006]. In my view, any such appreciation of the material connectedness of life on this planet is not something we should dismiss lightly. Our age and the challenges it presents demand of us analyses that are both integrated and inclusive. My intention is not to sentimentalize or romanticize indigenous knowledge, and certainly not to reject wholesale Western traditions of rationality or scientific inquiry. However, I am interested in identifying those strains of both Western and indigenous modes of knowledge production that may interact constructively. The introduction of a priori distinctions such as that between tradition and modernity, or between culture and science, is something I find to be increasingly inappropriate to the time we live in. Moreover, these are likely to continue to impair our capacity for collective action in the face of major environmental and social challenges.
4HE ±CULTURE OF DIALOGUE² In my brief presentation to the World Knowledge Dialogue 2006 Symposium in CransMontana, I spoke of the “culture of dialogue”. My point was to draw attention to the prevailing worldviews and background assumptions that shape our various inquiries. Many universities and research institutions, though dominated by European traditions, have provided spaces for this type of reasoning and inquiry. This extends, in the new world countries with which I am most familiar (Australia, New Zealand, and Canada), to an openness to dialogue between scientific modes of knowledge production and those drawn from other cultures and peoples [de Costa, 2006]. It is in this context that I have developed as a researcher. My academic training has, since graduate school, been explicitly interdisciplinary and increasingly open to intercultural encounter in the ways I describe above. I conducted my dissertation research within an Institute for Social Research (HTTP WWWSISRNET), rather than a conventional academic department. Working across disciplinary boundaries, and employing multiple methodologies, has therefore always seemed to me an obvious way to tackle the kinds of complex problems that are the subject of interest in various fields. My postdoctoral fellowship was conducted in an Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition (HTTP GLOBALIZATIONMCMASTERCARESEARCHHTM). In that context, I joined a large team of scholars working across the social sciences and humanities on a collective research endeavor entitled Globalization and Autonomy (HTTP WWWGLO
186
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
BALAUTONOMYCAGLOBALINDEXJSP). My own contribution to this project has been to edit a forthcoming collection of papers that examine indigenous peoples’ encounters with and responses to globalization [Blazer, 2008]. The forthcoming collection places in its foreground the theme of the material connectedness of human life and the natural world. On the one hand, globalization, for example in the form of the global expansion of the European notion of property, has impaired indigenous traditions in which responsibility to the natural world is indistinguishable from the concept of ownership. On the other hand, global systems of communication and mobility have created information and solidarity networks of indigenous peoples and other actors who seek a rectification of the environmental and other excesses of capitalism and development.
0ATIENCE What I have learnt from these experiences is that there are some necessary features of a successful dialogue between modes of knowledge production. The first is patience, which may be so obvious as to be banal, but which is not always a virtue celebrated by scholars who spend night and day in isolation on their work. A second observation is that successful dialogue cannot impose and can only very loosely assume an ultimate outcome that is defined in advance of the dialogue actually taking place. Dialogue needs to be seen as a process of construction, an opportunity to reach both a shared definition of a problem and an understanding of how the contributions of various disciplines and methodologies can be brought into a coherent and single response to that problem. Three general categories of motivation (so far) have seemed to me to be at the basis of effective dialogues ; each suggests a different path towards possible shared outcomes : (a) An ethical obligation : mostly to be found in the social sciences and humanities, this emerges out of situations where individuals and scholars realize that estrangement of types of knowledge or experience has raised ethical issues, and so the hoped-for outcome of dialogue is framed initially in terms of the creation of some new and more ethical relationship between modes of knowledge production. This is clearly the case in research dialogues which aim to bring the hitherto subjects of research (whether indigenous or minority peoples, children, the disabled and so on) into the processes of research itself. Often the hope is that a more inclusive dialogue about the research will not only lead to better findings, but also mean those findings can be translated into more effective and durable policy. (b) A sense of the limits of methodology : where particular knowledge-producers feel constrained by traditional methodological options and engage with other disciplines in order to extend understanding. Here outcomes tend to be shaped largely by the epistemological commitments of the original researchers, rather than the new methods inviting an engagement between traditions. (c) A problem-based approach : this is a motivation to dialogue inspired by generalized or even popular realizations that some phenomena are definitively beyond mere uni-disciplinary understanding. Outcomes here are sought in terms of providing a multi-faceted response to problems framed in non-disciplinary terms, such as global warming. “Complexity” is another example of such a conceptual problematic that invites interdisciplinary engagement.
Knowledge, Culture and Interdisciplinary Dialogue
187
4HE GREAT DIVIDE For me, few presentations at the World Knowledge Dialogue Symposium of 2006 succeeded in bridging the divide between the natural and social sciences at all, and those that made most headway stemmed from the second motivation I described above. I also note that several participants expressed concern from the floor about the extension of scientific or materialist approaches to issues previously the domain of social science. Professor West’s fascinating paper on the biology of the city was an example of such an approach. Without downplaying the importance of such research, I would emphasize that for me it is but one possible approach to interdisciplinarity and should not define the dialogue to the exclusion of others. The paper that had the most visible impact on the audience was undoubtedly Dr Schellnhuber’s gripping synthesis of the latest research on climate change that drew on physics, oceanography and other disciplines in the natural sciences. However, after reflection, it seemed to me that the account still did not address the aspects of the same issue that are of central interest from the viewpoint of the social scientist : I found it a superb descriptive account of the physical phenomena of global warming and the carbon cycle, but felt there was no point of connection with those dimensions of the problem that stem from humans’ choices and behavior.
2ATIONAL SEMI RATIONAL IRRATIONAL There is an assumption often made that if we are simply presented with the facts, then humans will respond appropriately and collectively. Many social scientists and humanists would point out that this is, in fact, a fairly rare response, that rationality is only one motivation among many, and moreover, that it does not necessarily lead to collective action. As a consequence, if we wish to see global warming as a theme for genuine dialogue across the natural and social sciences/humanities, we will also need input from people who can explain human behavior, such as psychologists who study consumer behavior, analysts of public policy-making institutions, and specialists in international relations who can help us understand how to construct collective action at the global level. Of course, any project is initiated by particular individuals who have specific histories and personalities. Genuine trans- or interdisciplinary dialogue places a great burden on those actually doing the work, and especially those leading it, to proceed in ways that are inclusive without being pre-emptive. Interdisciplinary dialogues and debates, especially when they move from small workshops on sub-questions or topics into larger or plenary settings require a particular form of intellectual leadership, one skilled in synthesis and in filtering without misrepresentation. The challenges of this difficult task were apparent on the last day of our 2006 meeting in Switzerland. The groups designed to speculate on what dialogue might mean in three defined contexts (Dialogue driven by political instruments ; Dialogue driven by academic institutional governance ; Dialogue driven through education), held quite fruitful initial discussions, but my view is that those complex and particular discussions were inadequately represented in the summary presentations to the larger plenary.
188
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
$IALOGUE BY BLOG One constructive suggestion towards improving open access and recording of the detailed debate between workshop participants might be to instigate a BLOG site devoted to participant exchanges during the conference proceedings. Another suggestion is for the smaller groups to elect from their members the individuals who will make summary presentations, maintaining coherence as the move is made from the particular to the general. I recently began work in the Faculty of Environmental Studies (FES) at York University in Toronto (HTTP WWWYORKUCAFESINDEXASP). In this context, I will be able to work both as a researcher and a teacher by drawing on all three of the motivations to trans- and interdisciplinarity I have outlined. As may be clear from the foregoing comments, my research reflects a realization of the problems that may arise in my field when doing only narrowly disciplinary work. There is an obvious ethical component to this work, as well as frequent realizations of the limits of particular methodologies. An example of the latter is the adaptation of historical techniques including oral history, to overcome the limits of using only sociological methods to understand the contemporary effects of 20th century policies that forcibly relocated indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the field of indigenous and colonial studies often throws up complex conceptual problematics such as “reconciliation” or “intersocietal law”, which draw together very different types of scholar. The burgeoning fields of ethnobotany and traditional environmental knowledge reveal how these interdisciplinary and intercultural insights are already producing new fields of inquiry, for instance see, [de Costa, 2006 ; Blazer, 2008]. Given these interests and the texture of the field in which I work, the Faculty of Environmental Studies is an ideal context. It has no internal divisions into academic departments and is recognized as one of the most inclusive and interdisciplinary in North America : it brings together natural scientists, humanists and social scientists who co-operate in the teaching of large graduate and undergraduate programs and research. York University itself is also dedicated to the potential and propositions of interdisciplinarity and this is reflected in the organization of the institution, its range of interdisciplinary graduate programs and research institutes. Although it is early in my career at York FES, I am confident that the culture of the Faculty as well as its institutional framework and supports, provide an excellent context in which to continue pursuing the types of interdisciplinary and intercultural questions I have described above.
)MPEDIMENTS However, it seems that although the varied motivations for the pursuit of interdisciplinary work are widely held, institutional impediments remain significant. Many young scholars of my acquaintance, especially those trained in disciplinary graduate programs, worry about the consequences of embarking upon interdisciplinary projects, in which the number of strictly-imposed disciplinary criteria they are required to satisfy is essentially multiplied by the number of disciplines involved. This affects peoples’ willingness to collaborate, their choices about venue of publication and creates concerns about employability. While many universities talk in inflated terms about the benefits of interdisciplinarity,
Knowledge, Culture and Interdisciplinary Dialogue
189
relatively few appear to support it in terms of employment, career development and institutional support for scholars working at disciplinary intersections. There is great debate going on about the relationship between the academic and the broader communities. My own hopes and expectations are simply that the work of academics increases humans’ capacity to engage constructively with the world and the societies in which they live. I think that interdisciplinary work, especially when motivated by the problem-based approach outline above, gives scholars a great opportunity to do that in ways that the public, the media and policy-makers can appreciate. We have in democratic societies come to see dialogue and reason as the very material of our political lives. So, for those of us who earn their livelihoods by teaching and researching, we are all already engaged in producing and reproducing the basic material of politics itself : citizens capacity to contribute to the collective debate.
2EFERENCES de Costa, R. (2006) A Higher Authority : Indigenous Transnationalism and Australia, Sydney : University of New South Wales Press. Blaser, M., Coleman, W., de Costa, R. and McGregor, D. (Eds) (2008) Insights for a Globalizing World : Indigenous Peoples, Relations and Autonomy, University of British Columbia Press.
4HE 0ARADIGM 3HIFT IN THE 2ELATIONSHIP "ETWEEN 3CIENCE AND 3OCIETY by Mary Louise Gifford
The advance of knowledge and the complexities characterizing modern day developments now require a major infusion of knowledge in decision-making and policy formulation. A pertinent example of this confluence of science and policy lies in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a remarkable amalgam of different disciplines, all of which continue to provide policy relevant assessments on all aspects of climate change. The understanding of policy relevance requires close coordination and dialogue with policy makers, which obliges IPCC report summaries to be written in language that it is intelligible to politicians, civil servants and diplomats etc., without compromising on scientific integrity. The article below details the record of the IPCC in creating a platform between scientists and policy makers, its procedures for establishing transparency, credibility and objectivity in the assessment produced, as well as the impacts that it has had on the society thus far. Embedded in a study of the IPCC are valuable insights into the paradigm shift in the relationship of science with society, which provide a basis for a part of the World Knowledge Dialogue.
! DE½NING ISSUE One of the defining issues of the 21st century would be to articulate and clarify the role of scientists in society. If one looks at the situation prevailing, say 75 years ago, science was, by and large, far removed from issues of policy formulation or social concerns. Ensconced within an ivory tower, scientists were free to pursue their intellectual curiosity and it was left to chance whether the fruits of their discoveries would trickle down as benefits for society. While in the past science and innovation were driven by militarist need, commercial gains or intellectual curiosity, much of science today is driven by the need to mitigate the consequences of an earth with limited resources and a growing population.
The Paradigm Shift in the Relationship Between Science and Society
191
As the rapid advancement of globalization continues to inextricably bring various parts of our world together, our societal problems become ever more complex. The range of cause and effect correlative studies that can be measured now extend across continents. Advances in technology such as remote sensing and satellite imagery allow scientists to study global patterns as well as nano scales. However, with these great changes in our society, come great responsibilities. The advance of knowledge and the complexities characterizing modern day developments now require a major infusion of knowledge in decisionmaking and policy formulation.
! MODEL FOR THE MARRIAGE OF POLICY HUMANITIES AND SCIENCE Dilemmas such as climate change, the AIDs epidemic, energy security, poverty, the conflict in the Middle East, or inequitable world trade, cannot be solved solely by militaristic aggression or pure scientific theory. Old problems need new solutions. Solutions will require accurate non-biased interdisciplinary information and a platform in which they can be communicated. The creation of a new model (Fig. 1), the inverted triangle, represents the idealized relationship to be developed between different layers in the realms of science, research disciplines and policy. While the fullest part of the triangle represents the knowledge base of all the science and research, the tip represents the reduction of information that is summarized to clearly target the policy audience. The vast and evolving theories in science and humanities undergo constant review through the peer-viewed literature process as new information is found that either corroborates or disproves theory. To effectively direct pertinent information, input from the policy community is essential to condense and communicate this understanding to policy makers. Reducing information is not enough. A successful marriage requires transparency and dialogue.
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
HUMANITIES KNOWLEDGE
PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE
CONSTANT
POLICY INPUT ON SCOPE
REVIEW
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO POLICY
POLICY Fig. 1 The Information Pyramid.
192
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
4RANSPARENCY CLARITY IN REDUCTIONISM Reductionism is inherent to public policy advising. However, the key to a successful nexus between the scientists and policymaking lies in maintaining objectivity and transparency in reduction. The process, by which the vast amount of scientific information is reduced, must be followed in a clear and transparent manner that maintains an intimate but strictly defined relationship with the policy community. This relationship should foster both relevance to the public and credibility of the most advanced and least biased knowledge. This premise entails that a series of check and balances are made upon the information provided to policy.
%STABLISHING A DIALOGUE COMMUNICATION IS KEY Different driving forces define the role of scientist and politician. The need for funding, the requirement to “publish or perish” or the newest scientific finding provides incentive for the scientist. Economics, special interest groups and public opinion play a role in determining which actions policy advocates. Either party has been able to remain blissfully unaware of each other in the past, now however certain issues necessitate a more direct dialogue.
4HE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE One pertinent example of this confluence of science and policy lies in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Typically, a full assessment of the IPCC requires the direct involvement and direct authorship of a few hundred scientists and involves several thousand scientists contributing in some form or the other. For instance, the Fourth Assessment Report, currently under preparation, involves over 500 scientists drawn from various disciplines working directly as authors, and engages several thousand others in supporting roles. The assessment of the science of climate change essentially requires atmospheric scientists using complex global models and rigorous quantitative analysis. The work of impacts and adaptation involves expertise in the biosciences, geosciences, the science of water resources and economics etc. The third part of the IPCC assessment looking at mitigation options, essentially involves engineers, economists and other social scientists. Thus the IPCC is a remarkable amalgam of different disciplines, which on a continuous basis provide policy-relevant assessments encompassing all aspects of climate change. The understanding of policy relevance requires close coordination and dialogue with policy makers, which helps IPCC report summaries to be written in language that it is intelligible to politicians, civil servants and diplomats etc.
0ROVIDING TRANSPARENCY THE )0## PROCESS When a policy issue such as climate change is controversial, the need to preserve and enhance credibility of the supporting science is particularly important. In its procedural
The Paradigm Shift in the Relationship Between Science and Society
193
protocol (Fig. 2), the IPCC has essentially established a series of checks and balances to maintain integrity in the report’s scientific information. Firstly, the assessment reports can only consist of information found in preexisting peer reviewed published literature. This initial process ensures that the contributing studies have endured scientific rigor among an editorial board of experts in the relevant scientific field. The scientific studies are then compiled and summarized in an underlying report that is written by a team of leading scientific experts and typically a 1000 page-long document. This underlying report represents the transition of broadest end of the information triangle to the first condensed analysis. The key to a credible assessment is to remain absolutely objective, recording all results that either prove or disprove hypothesis and its associated likelihood, with clear citations linking the statement to a published scientific study. For example, a section of the Working Group II report details regional impacts of climate change in Asia. An issue that is of monumental importance to more than a billion people as well as being highly contested among the science world is the impact of climate change on the Asian Monsoon. While scientific evidence indicating rising sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean is well documented, the direct correlation with a decrease in rainfall from monsoons contains a degree of uncertainty. Some studies have associated the impact of local effects (Atmospheric Brown Clouds produced by local aerosol emissions), others correlate rising sea surface temperatures associated with global Greenhouse warming, while other studies link both atmospheric brown clouds and climate change. It is the duty of IPCC authors to state all recent and relevant studies regardless of whether it is compelling evidence for and against the impact of the Asian Monsoon and GHG induced climate change. Procedures for the IPCC: Establishing Credibility
Procedures for the IPCC: Establishing Credibility Outline established by Panel
Publish report
Panel Nominates experts
Government review of “Summary for Policymakers” report
Bureax select authors Final Assessment draft
st
1 draft of Assessment written
Expert review
2nd Assessment draft
Expert and government review
Fig. 2 Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work : Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publicationof the IPCC Reports Adopted at the Fifteenth Session (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999) amended at the Twentieth Session (Paris, 19-21 February 2003) and Twenty-first Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003) HTTP WWWIPCCCHABOUTPROCDHTM. (Source : IPCC Principles & Procedures.)
194
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
2EDUCTION REDUCTION REDUCTION From this point (Fig. 3), each chapter is again rewritten in an executive summary by the coordinating lead authors. Statements are selected on the basis of their robustness and relevance of findings, and confidence statements are included to reflect the amount of scientific evidence that supports the assessment. Then, executive summaries of the individual chapters are combined into an approximate fifty page Technical Summary. Drawn from the Technical Summary, “The Summary for Policy Makers” is drafted (typically 15 pages in length). The report written undergoes two series of separate reviews, first by experts, then by expert and government reviewers. The process is, to say the least, tedious. In the first draft of review for the Synthesis report, collectively 2482 reviewers from across the globe reviewed and commented on the report. The responsible team of authors then individually addresses each one of the comments, either incorporating or rejecting it into the report with a documented scientific explanation for reason of inclusion or exclusion. Through the laborious process of dual reviews and statements that can be traced back to literally the raw data of an instrument reading, the rigorous process of the IPCC is maintained. Metrological Forecasting Metrological Observations
Scientific Observation Social Sciences: Adaptation Studies
Sophisticated Scientific Modeling
Economic Modeling Economic Forecasting
Statistical Analysis World Health Information
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Biological Monitoring
1000s of peer-reviewed published articles
WORKING GROUP I REPORT: scientific aspects of climate change Ex ry ry Summary for Policy Makers
WORKING GROUP II REPORT: vulnerability, impacts & adaptation Ex ry y Summary for Policy Makers
WORKING GROUP III REPORT: mitigating climate change Ex mmy y Summary for Policy Makers
SYNTHESIS REPORT Summary for Policymakers
Fig. 3 The Synthesis Report.
)0## 4HE 7ORLD +NOWLEDGE $IALOGUE ON #LIMATE #HANGE Over the last decade, while science has been able to successfully document evidence of the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the world’s climate, government and society still remain at odds on what to do about it. The controversy over climate change develops when abstract computer models from NASA boil down to cost of infrastructure,
The Paradigm Shift in the Relationship Between Science and Society
195
loss of human life and the games of international politics. Political issues arise such as maintenance of economic growth while taxing emissions, damage payment incurred by vulnerable nations and power to set emissions standards still plague progress in international policy. Through the establishment of a panel, representing every government who is member of the UN Framework on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), the IPCC creates a platform in which scientists and policy makers can engage in a dialogue. Initially, the input on scope and ultimately, the approval of the assessment report are two key ways in which an interaction is established. Subsequent to the commission of an IPCC report, all stakeholders involved define a scope of the report. This involves an interdisciplinary dialogue with the scientists, governments and environmental organizations to define what information is relevant and needed for policy. The panel of the IPCC ultimately approves the assessment reports as a reference document for UNFCCC negotiations. Often the IPCC is criticized for its interaction with governments, questioning the validity of published reports in which governments have been involved. However, IPCC Assessment Reports go beyond a simple scientific report. When a 15-page document is produced with legal implications for all countries involved, every word matters (e.g. see Fig. 4). Just as positive genetic identification evidence does not justify a final imprisonment sentence, neither does a report written only by pure scientists entail a legal reference for all countries involved. Countries must at least have the ability for trial on scientific evidence included and not included in the report. For instance, within the UNFCCC, decisions on allocations from the Adaptation Fund (a pot of money collected from revenues generated by the Clean Development Mechanism issued by the Kyoto Protocol) rely on the IPCC reports to expend on what is defined as a recognized “vulnerable region”. The oversight of scientific authors to exclude the water impacts of developing countries in Latin America could imply these countries are deemed as not vulnerable and thus denied funding. At the conclusion of the drafted report, there is a trial in which the compiled report is accepted by the panel. This stage represents the platform in which the “factual” science merges with drivers of policy. Ultimately, the scientists and authors have the final say on report wording, however the governments are able to provide their input. The panel’s participation in the IPCC report approval process is imperative. When the document, that has taken thousands of scientist’s expertise and contribution is deemed worthy under the scrutiny of a panel that represents every country in the world, a universal acceptance and treaty is formed, thus representing the power of the report. Endbox 2. ( #
"!# ' ' !" % " !$ #!" " "!!!! #" !#" ! 1
"' # !!1 !!1 !1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! 1
1
% " !$ #!" & !! ( !"" " ! "!" #" " #" #" #" #" #" #" ! !!" #"
Fig. 4 Liklihood and Confidence Language. Taken from : IPCC WGI IPCC, 2007 : Climate Change 2007 : The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
196
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
! HISTORICAL OUTLOOK ON )0## The IPCC Assessment Reports go beyond a simple scientific report, and provides an important basis for future policy decision-making. In 1990, the First Assessment Report was published. This document constructed the early foundation for the panel, explained the climate system from a scientific viewpoint in non-technical language, and provided its initial input for the UNFCCC. The Second Assessment Report, published in 1995, was an important input in providing a basis for the Kyoto Protocol. The publication of the Third Assessment Report (2001) marked a turning point for awareness of climate change issues. It also sensitized the global community on impacts and adaptation to the impacts of climate change as opposed to only presenting the scientific evidence for a changing climate. The Third Assessment Report is used routinely as a useful reference for providing information for deliberations on agenda items of the Conference of the Parties. The Fourth Assessment Report, whose concluding Synthesis report is now available online at HTTP WWWIPCCCHPDFASSESSMENT REPORTARSYRAR?SYRPDF, is expected to have a major impact on policies beyond 2012 agreements.
,OOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE While a policy issue is controversial, there remains a continued need to preserve and enhance credibility of the supporting science, while maintaining anintimate relationship with policy community. The establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and its work to date provide a graphic example of science being drawn into the arena of public policy on a subject of critical future to humanity and all life on this planet. Embedded in a study of the IPCC are valuable insights into the paradigm shift in the relationship of science with society, and their analysis may be of help to other inter-disciplinary initiatives that not only impact upon society but themselves represent an integral part of the societal model. Further, the template of the IPCC experience could perhaps be replicated in other critical areas of overlap between scientific endeavor and public policy, for instance in areas such as health and the development of biotechnology and nanotechnology.
0ERSONAL RE¾ECTIONS ON THE 7+$ INITIATIVE As a young scientist and American citizen, the experiences I have gained in a year spent at the IPCC in New Delhi, India have opened my mind to new perceptions of the world around me. At the 2006 World Knowledge Dialogue, set among the majesty of Swiss Alpine Mountains and impressive attendees, I could not help but notice a lack of representation from countries from the Africa and Asian continents. This seems to me a lost opportunity. Exploring the developing world and eastern philosophy have given me new perspective, a new understanding of my preconceived notions and has forced on me the reality of lives that previously seem so distant from my own. I have every reason to believe that exchanges between the different cultural and geographical strands of our global society can enrich us and our institutions at every level.
!NTHROPOLOGY IN THE 5NITED 3TATES ¯ WHEN $IALOGUE )3 THE $ISCIPLINE ! -ULTI LEVEL %VOLUTIONARY #ONSIDERATION OF +NOWLEDGE 0RODUCTION by Dan T.A. Eisenberg
In the United States anthropology has a history from its beginnings in the early 20th century of being four-field and holistic. That is, the discipline explicitly seeks to integrate four fields, the studies of human culture, linguistics, archaeology, and biology, into a coherent and productive whole. The founders of American anthropology included men and women who practiced all four fields of anthropology. Over the years, with increasing specialization, this vision has yielded a multitude of results. Many anthropology departments harbor a spectrum of scholars including humanists, social scientists and biological/natural scientists. In some prestigious departments that were among the founders of four-field anthropology (e.g. Harvard and Columbia), splits have occurred along biological versus cultural/linguistic lines, with the departments becoming physically and institutionally distinct. Other departments still explicitly promote the dialogue between the subfields and have some real success. Still other departments have contingents of cultural or biological anthropologists who feel oppressed by the other majority group.
!NTHROPOLOGY AS A MICROCOSM U.S. anthropology is perhaps a microcosm of the interdisciplinary groups the World Knowledge Dialogue concept promotes. Anthropology is sometimes a very compelling and cutting edge field to be a part of, with a passion and the tools for understanding the diversity of the human condition like no other discipline. However, much of the time there is no dialogue between cultural and biological anthropologists or we waste our time with antagonism or polite reservation. In many departments it seems more likely that a biological anthropologist will collaborate with an historian or other social scientist outside of their department than a cultural anthropologist in their department. Perhaps U.S. anthropology can be a lesson about some of the pros and cons of interdisciplinary work.
198
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
The causes of both the antagonism and the few cases of productive collaboration across the four fields of U.S. anthropology can be understood through an evolutionary view of the nature of knowledge production. In order to lay out this theory I will first review the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Then I will extend these fundamentals into an explanation of the more controversial theory of evolution working at multiple levels (also known as multi-level or group selection). I will then review how science and knowledge production more generally is, in large part, an evolutionary process. Finally, I will compare what has made multi-level selection and the social sciences both suffer a lack of acceptance by the more general reductionist scientific community. Evolution depends upon three fundamental and connected factors : variation, heritability, and natural selection. These factors are usually understood in respect to biological organisms and I will use this wording at first, but in anticipation of our further points, I use the word “organism” as a stand in for a more general concept. For evolution to occur, first, organisms must vary in the traits that will evolve. Second, this variation must be heritable such that there is a correlation between a parent and an offspring’s traits. Finally, those with some traits must survive and reproduce more than others. Studies of the Galapagos Finches (Darwin’s Finches) illustrate this process well. The finches have variation in the lengths of their beaks that are heritable (a longer beaked parent will tend to have a longer beaked offspring). A longer beak allows finches to eat more of certain large types of seeds. So when these seeds are more prevalent natural selection favors a longer beak, and longer beaks will evolve [Weiner, 1994]. From deeper consideration of these three factors one can begin to understand the spiraling complexity of life from its most primitive origins to complex multi-cellular organisms with cultural and linguistic abilities [Maynard Smith and Szathmáry, 1995].
!NALOGOUS PROCESSES Diving into a more controversial area of evolutionary thought, I will now examine multilevel selection theory. This theory is probably best explained by the evolutionary biologist and anthropologist, David Sloan Wilson [Sober and Wilson, 1998]. It postulates that evolution does not only take place at the individual organism level, but also at higher and lower levels. Take two church parishes with somewhat different beliefs and somewhat different behaviors motivated from the different beliefs. When the population of each parish grows and populations disperse, the parishes will tend to create new parishes in the image of the mother parish. In this model we have variation among parishes that is heritable to new parishes. If some beliefs and subsequently motivated behaviors allow one parish to increase more in numbers either through better recruitment or better survival and reproduction of its members, natural selection will favor that parish, and religion will evolve in the direction of the beliefs and practices of the more successful church. This may occur even if the beliefs and practices of the church are maladaptive for some members of the church. Note that this theory does not postulate that all (or even most) characteristics of a sect are adaptive, nor that there are not other complementary historical explanations for many characteristics of a religion. A parish, or other group, contains many characteristics that tend to exist in suites. Since there are only limited numbers of distinct churches,
Anthropology in the United States – when Dialogue IS the Discipline
199
by chance alone, one would not expect to find all permutations of characteristics represented in the pool of variation which selection can work upon. One church may have nine traits that have little positive or negative effects on the survival value of the church, but one trait that has a positive effect. It may be very difficult to distinguish which traits are adaptive, which are maladaptive and which are just along for the ride with little effect. Additionally, it is possible for maladaptive traits to become tied through tradition or other mechanisms to adaptive traits. This theory of evolution is termed multi-level selection to recognize that evolution acts on individuals AND groups and even at lower levels of genes acting at the detriment of the individual [Wilson, 2002 ; Dawkins, 2006 ; Burt and Trivers, 2006]. If some genetic element proliferates at the detriment of an organism, to understand the result we must carefully weigh the relative strengths of selection at the level of genes against selection at the level of organisms. Similarly, if a religious practice creates behavior that hurts its parishioners but helps the church compete against other churches we must examine the two fitness components together to understand the ultimate results.
+NOWLEDGE ±EVOLVES² Once we recognize that evolution is a process that describes any set of units that has components of heritable variation undergoing selection, we can begin to see other realms of application. Most pertinent to our current theme is how knowledge is produced. Through our evolved system of culture we can take ideas, transmit them, evaluate them, modify them and retransmit them. This system, coupled with language, no doubt has allowed innovations such as tool usage and moral codes to spread among all humans. The knowledge of how to construct a stone axe was discovered. Through demonstrations or recounting of one kind or another, others learned this skill. Through trial and error and selection of the best methods, axe construction became more efficient and evolved into other types of stone tool construction and other types of tool construction in general. The scientific process can be thought of as a more formalized and abstract version of tool construction. Ostensibly our only selective pressure is Truth ; demonstrated through empiricism. Many theories are made, many empirical tests of these theories are conducted, and only few theories survive. Those that survive tend to beget other theories like themselves. Knowledge production and science can be thought of as building a brick house. Each brick is a small fact. The fact may be the result of painstaking experiments by countless scientists working in the field and in labs. Together with many other facts/bricks, one builds up larger level grouping of facts into a wall, and then connects walls together until an enclosure is made. In this way arrangements of bricks can be rejected or accepted based upon their larger structural/logical soundness, as well as the soundness of the individual brick. The brick, wall and house are all judged with respect to others of their type and accepted or rejected and built upon in an evolutionary fashion. If a brick, or empirical observation, does not fit one type of wall, it can be used to support another. A wall and house are analogous to higher-level theories that unite facts together into coherent groups. It is my contention that the scope and nature of the discrete idea under selection determines the nature of the scientific process in that field. This distinction is similar to
200
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. Some theories, particularly those to explain social behavior, tend to be of a very broad scope and there are many different theories to explain some of the same social phenomenon. This may be necessarily so. Cultural anthropologists and many of those in the humanities and social sciences more generally, often seek to say something big about the world. They often seek to get to the heart of a certain human condition and explain how it came about and fits into a larger social context. Social scientists seek to explain apparently more complex, multi-factorial systems that have greater random variation, than do many other scientists.
4HE NARRATIVE COMPONENT The nature of theories that lie closer to the humanities and social sciences end of the spectrum differ from those on the natural sciences side. The human mind, the evolved psyche, understands knowledge through stories [Gottschall and Wilson, 2005]. While the “characters” in the more natural sciences do not lend themselves well to stories, the issues dealt with by the social scientist are often ones we have evolved to feel passionately about and feel we have implicit knowledge of. Those issues that are important for the humanists and social scientists to research are often those which should engender moral outrage and consist of a cast of intriguing, inspiring, passionate, lecherous or villainous figures involved in elaborate plots. Such an interesting story (to our evolved psyche) can not easily be told about the forces inside an atom, nor even how or why hormones controls reproductive maturation in humans. Additionally, many in the humanities and social sciences have more passionate feelings than average about what they study. Often they were driven to and remain driven in their work by an admirable social consciousness. While perhaps admirable, these forces often act counter to those of science. They create a different selective filter than empirical truth through which conclusions are drawn. A good example of this is the extreme view on human sex differences in behavior that contends the differences between males and females behavior are exclusively caused by the environment. While it is of course true that culture/environment influences sex roles, there are clear psychological differences between males and females, with robust roots in our evolved biological history. Despite this, long discredited work of the anthropologist Margaret Mead, advancing the idea that societies exist in which the two sexes exhibit all the ranges of behaviors, continues to be cited to promote an apparently politically motivated belief. In my (limited) observations, the social sciences tend to refer to particular theorists almost reverently. These theorists describe large swaths of general information, but often have limited precise predictions. Natural sciences of course have their own suite of greats who are fundamental to their disciplines, however when these individuals are mentioned it is usually either a passing reference or in the context of testing a very particular element of their theory. Like a sect of a church containing some finely tuned adaptive elements but also other useless elements that are dragged along by their historical connections to the adaptive elements, the ideas of particular social theorists probably contain some very good ideas. However, these ideas are tied to many other ideas that are often not so good. By testing the higher level theories of one theorist as units against those of another, one may be accepting many wrong ideas along with the few right ones they are focusing on.
Anthropology in the United States – when Dialogue IS the Discipline
201
A similar phenomenon in non-evolutionary terms is too much dependence on deductive reasoning and not enough on inductive reasoning.
-ULTI LEVEL SELECTION THEORY Multi-level selection theory is similar to studies of humanity in two key ways. Multi-level selection is postulated to be ideal for the study of human traits such as religion, cultural rules and family behaviors. Even when multi-level selection is used for studies of nonhuman organisms, the language it utilizes is somewhat familiar and intuitive. Multi-level selection is explicitly concerned with selfishness, altruism and the greater good of the group (be it a family, church, nation or even species). So whether studying humans or the sex ratios of wasps, multi-level selection deals with salient emotional subjects, including cheaters, sacrifice for the greater good and complex permutations along this spectrum. Secondly, like the study of humanity, multi-level selection studies are explicitly more complex than many other forms of study. To study the evolutionary fitness of several groups we usually ignore many details of the mechanisms and individual fitness values inside the groups. This is analogous to someone studying the stressful family experiences of immigrants and ignoring the biology of the stress response. Increased variation normally allows more finely tuned adaptations to evolve. All else being equal, the existence of variation in social theories should do the same. However, critically important to the nature of this evolution, or track toward a finer understanding of the truth, is how the units under selection are selected. When one must gloss over smaller units of facts in order to try to draw the big picture, one cannot reliably reject or accept the smaller units. I contend that much of the variation of social theories is due to an inability to select between different theories.
,INKING FRACTAL LAYERS OF KNOWLEDGE This is not to say that the theories of social sciences have not made headway at higher levels of selection. However, for continued success they must integrate some lower levels of knowledge and include scientific methodologies at all levels. How do we productively draw on the assets of different levels of scientific analysis ? How do we collaborate ? The trick for collaboration is to meet together not only on parallel or complementary subjects, but also on parallel or complementary levels of analysis. If the effort is to bridge gaps between the natual sciences and social science we must agree that both lower level observations and higher-level theories can and must be integrated and rigorously tested. In such fields as molecular biology and psychology much time is dedicated to the validation of ways of measuring their subjects of interest. Journal articles documenting only the validation of a new protocol are common, considered necessary and often serve as the intellectual basis for new areas of inquiry. It is my impression that those studying sociocultural phenomena generally do not use the same rigor and dedicate the same time to validating their measures. In order to make this bridge to lower levels of analysis or even to distinguish among competing theories at higher levels, this must be done. However, as
202
Knowledge Dialogue: Academic Institutional Governance, Education and Experiences
new protocols are developed it must also be recognized that the social scientist, not having the same opportunities for controlled experiments that some other scientists have, dealing with complex cultural phenomena and subjects with emotional salience, may face a more difficult task in validating their measures. In this light, non-significant results should be interpreted not necessarily as lack of evidence for a relationship (or a particular theory) but potentially a sign that a measure still requires development. Finally, some of those studying the social world are not attempting to use a scientific perspective. They have other goals that may include capturing a subjective essence of a complex situation, representing the rights of the underprivileged or other political motivations. These are fine areas of study that may inform and have a dialog with science, but are qualitatively distinct from science. It is important for this to be clearly understood. However, some in the humanities who utilize a non-scientific methodology attempt to use the language of science in an implicit effort to profit from its prestige. Some in the scientific community also wrongly presume these humanist scholars are scientists, often through no fault of the humanist, and in so doing criticize inappropriately. Anthropology departments often contain scholars who are solid humanists and those who are solid scientists. These differences of paradigms in an environment of frequent interaction and sometimes competition for scarce resources are probably the cause of much of the conflict. Of course, there are many scientists, and anthropologists in particular, who use the scientific method to direct their passion and political consciousness into productive and sound studies of the social world. All of this being said, I hope the reader recognizes that this essay, in attempting to describe large groups of disciplines, risks the very same pitfalls I warn of for the social sciences and multi-level selection. Even if my ideas happen to have some intuitive appeal to the reader, The ideas herein should only be judged as important in so far as they inspire testable theories or improve the quality of scientific research.24
2EFERENCES Burt, A., Trivers, R. (2006) Genes in Conflict : the Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Dawkins, R. (2006) The Selfish Gene, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. Gottschall, J., Wilson, D. S. (2005) The Literary Animal : Evolution and the Nature of Narrative, Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press. Maynard Smith, J., Szathmáry, E. (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution, Oxford/New York, W.H. Freeman Spektrum. Sober, E., Wilson, D. S. (1998) Unto others : the Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Weiner, J. (1994) The Beak of the Finch : a Story of Evolution in Our Time, New York, Knopf : Distributed by Random House. Wilson, D. S. (2002) Darwin’s Cathedral : Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
24
Acknowledgments : Thanks to Benjamin Campbell, Ricardo Godoy, Jim DeVona and Kelsey Needham for discussion, comments and critiques.
#ONCLUSION AND 0ERSPECTIVES
7HERE AND 7HENCE Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte, Francis Waldvogel
At the first major staging post on this journey of dialogue, it seems appropriate to re-pose the same fundamental questions that Andre Hurst invoked in his foreword to this book. Have we made discernable progress in our quest and do we know where the path will lead us next ? To the first of these rhetorical questions we respond with an unqualified affirmation. Enlightening experiences have been shared, bridges built, enthusiasm nurtured, tenacity rewarded. Just as importantly, lessons have been learned, frustrations aired, naiveties exposed. There is much still to do. It is abundantly clear from the contributions to this collection that there is a genuine and widely felt demand for closer interaction between the spheres of interest still distinguished by our academic, political and governing institutions as the natural-technical sciences and the human-social sciences. It is also clear that there is no common approach, no ready-made, one size fits all, knack to bridge the gaps that are perceived. Rather, there will be a multitude of approaches, each more or less pertinent to different domains. Together, the 2006 Symposium’s invited presentations and the many ideas that have been contributed by other participants, describe a number of existing practical approaches to generating inter/multi/cross disciplinary exchange. They should serve not only to be copied, adapted, modified for other users, but also to illustrate the breadth and depth of the imaginative possibilities that are open to us. As a first achievement, in uniting these brief résumés together we have gained a better overview of what is and is not going on in the academic community. The different ideas and measures aired in this publication include the creation of institutional approaches toward specific issues or problems ; such as the development of new teaching methods for undergraduates, as described by Timon McPhearson and his colleagues at Columbia University (Sect. 5.3) ; or the fostering of theme-based collaborations between representatives of different faculties within an individual university campus, as described by Akimasa Sumi at the University of Tokyo (Sect. 5.5) and by Zalina
206
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
Ismail at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (Sect. 5.6). Mary Louise Gifford at the Energy and resources Institute in New Delhi describes some of the scientific and sociological issues that have to be taken into account in the coordination and management of an issue-driven multidisciplinary collaboration, which calls for collaboration and communication on a worldwide scale between almost every conceivable domain of human activity (Sect. 5.8). On an grand scale that is not driven by any specific issue or theme, the College de France with its ancient humanist mission, “to promote learning at the cutting edge of research, to teach new areas of knowledge, to favor interdisciplinary exchanges” as exemplified by the activities of its Emeritus Professors, Jean-Pierre Changeux (Sect. 1.2) and Ian Hacking (Sect. 2.3), sets an example to be vaunted far and wide, and demonstrates that there need be no single, institutionalized approach to furthering the dialogue between different specialized domains of knowledge. Founded more than half a millennium later, the Santa Fe Institute, today under the Presidency of Geoffrey West (Sect. 2.1), follows yet another avant-garde recipe for multidisciplinary collaborations in the physical, biological, computational, and social sciences. Other, smaller initiatives, such as the one described by Richard Ernst to foster exchange between members of the University of Zurich and its local community (Sect. 5.1), are coordinated and administered through a central body, but are less formally institutionalized, relying heavily on the “voluntary” motivation of its participants. The most imaginative and exciting initiatives often depend on the creative instincts of a single individual to get started, but then rely on an institutional setting to catalyze them. For instance, Daniela Finke’s metaphor for intellectual interaction as akin to the interactive evolution of host-pathogen responses in immunology (Sect. 3.4) and her current efforts to initiate a course at the University of Basle, based on discussing immunological principals in the perspective of a humanities program, are heavily motivated by the serendipitous combination of stimulatory experiences in her own educational background. Some of the many highly personal initiatives that are exposed here or were alluded to during the course of the symposium’s exchanges quite possibly work because they are almost completely devoid of institutional regulation ; In this way, Markus Karner and his colleagues from different faculties at the Singapore Management University seem able to reconcile a mutually beneficial intellectual stimulation with the potential conflict of his business interests (Sect. 5.4). Ian Hacking’s scheme for one-on-one mentoring between graduates and post doctoral researchers from the department of philosophy and experimental physics (Sect. 2.3) works not only because it is conceived and overseen by a talented individual with a remarkably eclectic set of interests, but also because it has a flexibility and open-endedness in its expected outcomes that would be difficult (though not impossible) to generalize. As to the question of where we are headed ? While the metaphors we use include “breaking down intellectual boundaries”, “repairing cultural gaps” and “preventing disciplinary fragmentation”, the WKD’s aim of fostering interactions between different fields is not intended to achieve a uniform homogeneous melding without boundaries at any level of resolution. As Ernest Hartmann of Tufts University points out (Sect. 3.3) the existence of boundaries is inherent and necessary to the definition of any mental concept. But, the very act of exploring the markers that separate one concept, one field of intellectual activity, one ontological framework from another one, is a major step towards render-
Conclusion
207
ing those boundaries flexible, dynamic and bridgeable. Rather than reduce our individual goals to some lowest common denominator, by seeking to identify and confront the root causes of misunderstanding and lack of mutual respect between the proponents of different intellectual cultures, we are revealing to each other where hitherto unsuspected common interests lie. The successes we achieve with our semi-orchestrated dialogue on a small scale can send the message to a broader audience, that diversity of intellectual approach is not an obstacle to progress but is humanity’s richest asset. The transformation of the diversity of intellectual culture from obstacle to asset can only take place if we communicate with each other. Yet the dialogues born of the 2006 symposium have underlined just how difficult this task is and highlighted one of the major reasons for why it is the case ; There is no common language, no Esperanto, for communication between different disciplines, nor is there a simple magic formula to be gleaned from those who have successfully bridged a culture gap or introduced a perspective, method or analytical tool from one field into another. This said, Veronica Boix Mansilla from the University of Harvard argues convincingly that it is nonetheless possible, to apply a reductionist (scientific) approach to analyze successful interdisciplinary collaborations, in order to define some general principals that may guide our attempts to further dialogue between the natural and technical sciences, the social sciences and the humanities (Sect. 5.2). Where there is unanimous agreement between all parties is for the need to develop better awareness of the existence of different ontological frameworks and methods of knowledge construction. As Paul Cilliers of the University of Stellenbosch, Edward Slingerland of the University of British Columbia and Mark Freed of Central Michigan University describe (Sects 3.1, 3.2, 3.5), the problem lies much deeper than simple use of obscure technical jargon. Often the source of misunderstanding goes undetected because protagonists simply do not recognize that each assigns different connotations to the use of words like “truth”, “proof ” “right or wrong” “real or false”. This collection of articles reinforces another justification for taking proactive measures to encourage better communication between the traditionally defined intellectual cultures ; although the number and type of intellectual interactions that could be fostered might be infinite, they are not random. Like Geoffrey West’s tree-branching, space-filling life-force capillaries that nourish cells and cities (Sect. 2.1), ideas do not develop spontaneously, but sprout forth from the ideas that preceded them. Whether it be Svante Pääbo’s interest in deciphering the code of ancient DNA (Sect. 4.3), Ofer Bar-Yosef ’s interest in reconstructing the trajectories of human migration (Sect. 4.1), or Richard Ernst’s ongoing fascination with the magnetic resonance frequencies of different atomic nuclei (Sect. 5.1), each idea has its own unique history without which it would not exist at all. All knowledge is constructed, and though it is impossible to predict the outcome of intellectual interactions, the complex process of generating new ideas still follows fundamental rules and has an underlying order. The process can be favored or disfavored by the environment within which it functions. As Michael Ahdleff-Jones of Columbia University and the University of Paris reminds us (Sect. 3.6), knowledge acquisition thrives best in a spirit of generous humility where life-long learning and teaching are perceived as inseparable facets of the same process. It withers in the sterile conditions of conformity, amid calculations of maximum output efficiency. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, does not lie well either with the pursuit of power, influence, money, or career security. However, as both Ravi de
208
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
Costa from the University of Toronto (Sect. 5.7) and Daniela Finke from the University of Basel (Sect. 3.4) point out in their articles, if we are to discuss ways of reforming our educational structures to accommodate more room for interdisciplinary exchanges, we need to acknowledge that such factors exist even in the “Glass Bead Game” of academic life. A striking and unanticipated trend was apparent among participants to the 2006 WKD symposium proceedings and is reflected in the contributions to this book. Both the oldest, well-established generation of academics and those still at relatively early stages of promising academic careers, show genuine commitment to establishing the dialogue. However, there is an apparent generation jump among those with a holistic approach to knowledge acquisition, whether they come from natural and technical sciences backgrounds or from the social sciences and humanities. In retrospect, the dearth of midcareer academics sufficiently motivated to participate is no real surprise, but reflects the relative importance this generation accords to more directly self-centered issues in comparison with those perceived to affect humanity as a whole. This collection of articles and the movement behind its conception have a role to play in changing those perceptions. As a simple forum for dialogue, the WKD cannot itself solve the world’s problems, but it can act as a catalyst so that those willing to try quickly discover that interdisciplinary dialogue is no luxury but an essential complement to specialization within a domain of expertise. One real measure of our future success in convincing academics that dialogue is part of a life-long learning experience will be whether the proportion of mid-career academics that participate at WKD symposiums increases in coming years. We hope that these in-depth analyses of how different modes of thought, argumentation and action play complementary roles in problem solving and decision making processes, will contribute to the development of new analytical tools and methodologies for several different categories of end-user and help those in charge of our educational, research and governance structures to formulate recommendations and actions that will respond to our society’s urgent demands for more multidisciplinary approaches to its problems.
#ONTRIBUTORS
Michel Alhadeff-Jones is Adjunct Assistant Professor of Adult Learning and Leadership, Teachers College, Columbia University, Laboratoire EXPERICE, Université de Paris 8, Paris, France. He holds a Masters in Organizational Psychology (University of Geneva) and a PhD in Educational sciences (University of Paris 8). After having worked as a Teaching and Research Assistant in the Department of Adult Education, University of Geneva, he pursued his research in New York at Teachers College, Columbia University. He currently teaches there as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Organization and Leadership. In 2007 he obtained a PhD in Educational Sciences for studies done under the mentorship of Professor Pierre Dominicé in Geneva and Professor Jean-Louis Le Grand in Paris. Based on a constructivist epistemology, inspired both by the use of biographical approach and philosophical inquiry, his main topic of research focuses on the ideas of “critique” and “complexity” in education. His scientific project is based on four axes: developing a multireferential theory of critique as a complex phenomenon; using it to reconsider educational practices; promoting the theme of “critique” as the ground of a broader transdisciplinary approach of sciences and arts; exploring the formal and informal learning involved by scientists in order to adopt a critical and complex position in their respective fields of study. Ofer Bar-Yosef is MacCurdy Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology and Curator of Paleolithic Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA. Ofer Bar-Yosef is one of the world’s most renowned experts in paleolithic (Stone Age) archaeology. From the generation of native Palestinians whose own great-grand parents had emigrated from different parts of the world, his interest in human prehistory was kindled in his most formative years, as were his love of literature and archaeology. He began to formally study archaeology and geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, obtaining his PhD in 1970 and later becoming Professor of Pre-
210
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
historic Archaeology there. His major works include the excavations at ‘Ubeidiya, an Old Stone Age site in the Jordan Valley tentatively dated to 1.5-1.4 million years that marks one of the oldest “out of Africa”. He later initiated the redating of the Qafzeh hominids to 80,000-100,000 years old, twice the age that had been previously attributed to this archaic Modern Human population. A wealth of evidence now supports his hypothesis that humankind is not directly descended from the Neanderthals and that technological revolution on a massive scale accompanied their supplanting by our modern ancestors. He was among the first archeologists to make use of thermoluminesence and electron spin resonance techniques developed by scientists from France and Canada that allow the dating of fossils of such early origin that they are not amenable to radiocarbon dating. Professor Bar-Yosef has also made major contributions to the development of systematic methods for understanding the origins of farming communities, the archaeological markers of warfare and the emergence of marked territoriality. His theories and deductive analyses of mankind’s prehistorical cultural record are based on every imaginable type and combination of evidence that he can acquire. They include climatic clues from sediment layers, studies of densities of regurgitated micromammal remains and stone artefacts as measures of the degree of intensity of human occupations of caves. In 1988 Professor Bar-Yosef was appointed to his current position as MacCurdy Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Harvard University and head of the Peabody Museum’s Stone Age laboratory. His work and vocation for teaching have inspired a new generation of researchers who continue to revolutionize the field of archaeology. His own broad experience has made him a strong advocate of sharing the lessons that geologists, bioanthropologists, palaeontologists and archaeologists can glean from the same field experience. Jérôme Billotte is the Scientific Secretary of the World Knowledge Dialogue Foundation. He obtained a PhD in 1991 from the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC). He then carried out postdoctoral research in the field of molecular oncology before completing an MBA program from the University of Lausanne in 1995 and becoming a consultant to universities, research organizations and health system organizations. He has since been involved in the management of many academic largescale multi-partner projects. He has developed a number of management tools specifically dedicated to research organizations and is the founder of Amethis, a company developing scientific information systems designed both to promote information sharing across fields and to be user-friendly for managers of scientific organizations. Veronica Boix Mansilla is a Principal Investigator in the Interdisciplinary Studies Project at Project Zero, an educational research group at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. Her work is funded by the Atlantic Philanthropies Foundation. Her research examines the cognitive, social and epistemic dimensions of interdisciplinary work. It explores how human beings enhance their understanding of complex problems by using the lenses of disciplines like history, science, or the arts, or by combining disciplinary approaches in novel ways. She studies the challenges of research, and program evaluation at interdisciplinary crossroads. Working within a novice-expert psychological paradigm her research considers the work of experts, faculty, and students in exemplary institutions and programs in pre-collegiate and higher education. Building on an empirical under-
Contributors
211
standing of interdisciplinary work, she develops practical tools to design and evaluate quality interdisciplinary education and learning. Read more about the project zero site at WWWPZHARVARDEDUINTERDISCIPLINARY. Jean-Pierre Changeux is Professor Emeritus at the Collège de France and Department of Neurosciences, Pasteur Institute, Paris, France. At the advent of the molecular biology era, Jean-Pierre Changeux pioneered the study of the role of conformational change in regulatory processes. His PhD studies, carried out under the supervision of Jacques Monod, provided the experimental basis for the formal model of allosteric regulatory interactions in bacterial regulatory enzymes, put forward in a paper that has become one of the hundred most quoted of the world’s scientific literature. Throughout a long career, Changeux has consistently built upon and extended his early theory, to spawn many new and flourishing fields of investigation. His main contributions and discoveries in the course of the past 40 years are centered on the general theme of receptor mechanisms, primarily in the nervous system. He combines approaches from supposedly disparate disciplines of pharmacology, molecular biology and developmental biology as well as behavioral and pathological studies, as and when required. His contributions to understanding the regulation of acetylcholine receptors in turn contributed to understanding the nature of long-term synaptic plasticity within neural networks. They also inspired a number of other theoreticians and experimentalists. His seminal work on the nicotinic receptor pioneered new fields of research in signal transduction mechanisms, molecular pharmacology and pathology of chemical communications in the nervous system. The publication of his book Neuronal Man: The Biology of The Mind in 1985 brought Changeux celebrity status among the wider public. Since then he has co-authored several other books directed towards the non-scientific public. Notably, Conversations on Mind Matter and Mathematics (1998) and What Makes Us Think (2002) are widely acknowledged as having initiated an instructive dialogue between the two, often-hostile disciplines of neuroscience and philosophy. JeanPierre Changeux’s many academic accolades include the Louis Jeantet Prize for Medecine in 1993, the Balzan Prize in 2001 and the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science in 2004. In April 2006 year he received the Biotechnology Achievement Award from the University of New York School of Medicine. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and in 2007, received the NAS Award in the Neurosciences. Paul Cilliers is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He also gives courses at the Sustainability Institute, a non-profit, learning-center trust situated in nearby Lyndoch. He teaches Cultural Philosophy, Deconstruction and Philosophy of Science. In addition to a PhD in Philosophy (obtained in 1994) and a lively interest in literature and music, he has a degree in Electronic Engineering and worked professionally as an engineer for many years, specializing in computer modeling and pattern recognition using neural networks. His research is focused on the philosophical and ethical implications of complexity theory and he has published widely in the field. He teaches mainly cultural philosophy and deconstruction, as well as courses on the philosophy and ethics of science. He is the author of Complexity and Postmodernism (Routledge 1998). Professor Cilliers has also been a Visiting Professor at the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence, Boston, USA, and at the Institut für Philosophie, Philipps University of Marburg, Germany (2000).
212
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
Moira Cockell trained as a biologist at the University of Edinburgh and the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge, England. She obtained a Ph.D in 1990 for studies carried out jointly in Lausanne’s Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC) and the LMB. Since then she has co-authored numerous research articles and reviews and contributed to the understanding of several fundamental cellular regulatory mechanisms. For the last two years she has been collaborating with basic scientists, bioinformaticians and clinicians to integrate knowledge of a harmless laboratory model yeast into the limited medical armory available to combat its evolutionary cousin, a major human pathogen. She is also a freelance scientific editor. Frédéric Darbellay is a Senior Scientist at the University Institute Kurt Bösch (IUKB) in Switzerland. He is responsible for transdisciplinary teaching and research activities. In 2004, he obtained a PhD in Arts and Humanities from the University of Lausanne, for his interdisciplinary research in the domain of Discourse Analysis and Communication Sciences. Frédéric Darbellay is also an author of several publications on the theory and practice of interdisciplinarity. His works integrate interdisciplinary studies in linguistics, semiotics, psychosocial and cognitive sciences and focus on the roles of epistemology and methodology in transdisciplinary teaching and research. He is involved in many academic projects and scientific networks that implement and promote the dialogue between disciplines. Ravi de Costa is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada. Ravi de Costa’s research and teaching interests are in comparative and global approaches to the legacies of colonialism and Indigenous politics. He completed undergraduate and doctoral degrees in Australia, obtaining a BA in Government and public administration from the University of Sydney and a PhD in Politics from Swinburne University in Melbourne. His PhD dissertation was a comparative study of treatymaking in Canada and reconciliation in Australia. In 2003-2004 he held a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, where he conducted research on indigenous transnationalism. For the last several years he has participated in an SSHRC-funded Major Collaborative Research Initiative on the topic of Globalization and Autonomy. As part of that interdisciplinary project, he is co-editing a volume entitled Insights for a Globalizing World: Indigenous Peoples, Relations and Autonomy. HTTPWWWYORKUCAFESINDEXASP. Prior to joining FES in 2007, he taught in the Department of Political Studies at Trent University in Ontario. Gerald M. Edelman, Nobel Laureate, is Founding Director of the Neurosciences Institute; President of the Neurosciences Research Foundation; Professor and Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, USA. Prior to embarking on a doctoral degree in science, Gerald Edelman practiced medicine as a Captain in the U.S. Army Medical Corps. He went on to make important contributions to the fields of biophysics, protein biochemistry, immunology, cell biology and neurobiology, throughout a scientific career that now spans six decades. His research achievements have earned him numerous scientific honors and popular accolades. He shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1972, in recognition of his contributions to understanding the struc-
Contributors
213
tural basis for antibody diversity. The focus of his research moved on to developmental biology and in 1975 he was the first to describe the existence of the molecules that allow the developing neurons of the brain’s circuitry to communicate. He has combined insights about brain composition, connectivity, structure, function, and evolution to elaborate the theory of «neural Darwinism». Though remaining emphatically opposed to the analogy of the brain as a computer, Professor Edelman has recently made use of computers to model states of human consciousness and conclude that it is an entirely biological phenomenon. He has written a highly accessible account of his proposed alternative to “hard wiring” of the brain’s conscious processes in “Bright Air, Brilliant Fire” and is also the author of a series of more specialist books that develop a novel theory of human consciousness. Gerald Edelman is not afraid of controversy. He also a master of the art of telling a story and among other things, an accomplished musician. Dan T.A. Eisenberg is a PhD student in the Department of Anthropology Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. He studied anthropology and evolutionary biology as an undergraduate at Binghamton University, New York, United States. His many research interests include the evolution of stickleback fish and human behavioral genetics. He has recently taken part in an interdisciplinary anthropology project in Bolivia working with the Tsimane, a lowland indigenous group and has just enrolled in the PhD program in biological anthropology at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States. He plans to continue his research on the evolution of human behavior but also to increasingly focus on how evolutionary theory can inform public health concerns of the developing world. Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Laureate, is Professor Emeritus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Switzerland, Laboratorium für Physikalische Chemie, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. Richard Ernst developed a fascination for mathematics, music, and chemistry as well as an appreciation of the world’s “multiple dimensions” as a young child. After having received his PhD in Technical Sciences from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, he decided to experience more than the “Ivory Tower” of academia and felt it would be “more useful” to go into industry. In 1962 he went to work with Wes Anderson at Varian Associates, a company doing pioneering research in radar and microwave technology in Palo Alto, California. He returned to the ETH in 1968 where he became Full Professor in 1976. Building upon the earlier ideas of Wes Anderson, Jean Jeener, Paul lauterbur and others, he explored the possibilities of interpreting the multidimensional information in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1991, for his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution NMR spectroscopy. Professor Ernst is also a leading expert on Tibetan Art and is equally passionate about important issues that involve the responsibility of scientists in society. Daniela Finke, is Prof. Dr. med. at the Division of Developmental Immunology, Center for Biomedicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Daniela Finke was born in Freiburg, Germany in 1964. She studied Medicine at the University of Freiburg, Germany. In 1990 she received a fellowship to work with Prof. V. ter Meulen, former head of the
214
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
Institute of Virology, Wuerzburg and now president of the Leopoldina foundation (HTTP WWWLEOPOLDINA HALLEDEE?INDEXHTM). Having received her MD degree (s.c.l) in 1994, she did her medical internship at the University Hospital in Freiburg. In 1996, she joined the group of Prof. H. Acha-Orbea, at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Lausanne and then worked with Prof. J.P. Kraehenbuhl at ISREC, Lausanne, Switzerland. Since 2003 she holds an assistant professorship from the Swiss National Science Foundation at the University of Basel, Switzerland where she works on the development of the immune system. She holds the 2008 Pfizer award for Rheumatology, Immunology and Clinical Immunology. See her homepage at WWWCBMUNIBASCH. Mark M. Freed is Associate Professor in the Department of English, Central Michigan University, Michigan, USA. Professor Freed teaches literary and cultural theory, European literature and the history of literary criticism at Central Michigan University. His research is focused on the shapes and problems of knowledge production in the contemporary moment, especially the relation between scientific, literary, philiosophical, and other modes of understanding. He is currently working on a book which situates Austrian novelist Robert Musil within the trajectories of modernity and postmodernity. Parts of this project have been published in the journals Angelaki, Symplokē, and Comparative Literature Studies. Mary Louise Gifford worked as technical assistant to R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India. She was a member of the Technical Support Unit for the Synthesis Report of UNEP WMO Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She graduated at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), Syracuse NY with a 3.8 GPA in Environmental Engineering. In her academic career to date, Mary Louise has been involved with varied aspects of scientific research that include studies of indoor air quality, photosynthetic rates, hydrology, and the design of willow biomass hazardous waste landfill covers. In 2003, she co-founded a university chapter of “Engineers without Borders” at Syracuse University. The following year, as chapter president, she led a microhydro education and demonstration project in Dominica and participated in a trail reconstruction and education project in Honduras to help promote ecotourism. Mary Louise is now studying for a PhD at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Environmental Policy Research Center (FFU), Freie Universität, Berlin. Her current research interests lie in the development of renewable energy sector, particularly in developing Asian countries. Ian Hacking is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Canada and the Collège de France in Paris, France. Ian Hacking’s doctoral thesis work, done in the early 60’s in Cambridge, UK, led to his first book “Logic of Statistical Inference”. Since then, he has become an acclaimed expert in epistemology, in the philosophy of sciences and in the philosophy of languages and has pioneered the relatively new field of “Science Studies”. He is an acclaimed writer on subjects ranging from experimental physics to multiple personality. In addition to his many publications in peer-reviewed journals, his social commentaries and book reviews are regularly published in the popular press. Another of his books, “The Taming of Chance” first published in 1990, became a
Contributors
215
non-fiction best seller. Professor Hacking is particularly interested in the different styles of scientific reasoning and in the hierarchical relationships in the arrangement of thought processes. In particular he has conducted a serious exploration of how humankind uses science not only to describe the world, but to modify. If pressed to give a definition of his own discipline (a word he doesn’t underestimate), he chooses the term “analytic philosophy”. He has also claimed not to be an interdisciplinarian and never to collaborate with them. The highest academic honors of numerous countries have been bestowed on him. He holds a Chair in the Philosophy and History of Scientific Concepts at the Collège de France. In 2005, Le Nouvel Observateur, voted him philosopher of the year. Ernest Hartmann, M.D., is Professor of Psychiatry at the Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA and Director of the Sleep Disorders Center at the Newton Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Hartmann has done research on daydreaming, dreaming, nightmares, sleep, sleep disorders, and personality. He is also a past president of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, and the first editor-in-chief of the journal Dreaming. His book, the Biology of Dreaming deals not only with the psychology of dreaming, but also its neurophysiology, endocrinology and biochemistry. He has developed the recent Contemporary Theory of Dreaming, and is also known for his work on boundaries in the mind. He is the author of nine books and over 300 published articles. Dame Julia Higgins is Principal of the Faculty of Engineering at Imperial College, London, Ex-Foreign Secretary and Vice President of the Royal Society, UK. She is also WKD Scientist in Residence and moderator of the 2006 Crans-Montana WKD, and member of the International Scientific Board. Julia Higgins obtained her doctorate in physical chemistry at Oxford in 1968. She has been on the academic staff of Imperial College since 1976 and was appointed to a professorship in 1989. Her research involves the use of neutron scattering to study the behaviour of complex materials in terms of their molecular structure, organisation and motion. She has chaired the British Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the British Association for the Advancement of Science and is a foreign member of the US National Academy of Engineering. Professor Higgins is both a leader in her own field and a vociferous advocate of the need for continuous dialogue between science as an enterprise and society as a whole. She has raised the collective consciousness of the responsibilities of being a scientist in the modern world and has been instrumental in bringing consideration of gender issues in European science to the political forefront. In recognition of her contributions as a public ambassador for Science, she was made a Dame of the British Empire in 2001, and a Chevalier de la legion d’Honneur in 2004. In October 2006 she became Principal of the Engineering Faculty at Imperial College, London. Her remarkable scientific credentials and her long-standing involvement with humanist issues made her the outstanding choice to become the first “Scientist in Residence” of the WKD “Foundation” and the moderator of its first symposium. André Hurst is Emeritus Rector, University of Geneva, Switzerland, and President of the WKD Foundation. André Hurst studied at the University of Geneva and obtained a doctorate in literature in 1967. He has been a full professor at the University of Geneva since 1983 and is a renowned authority on the language, literature, music and civilization of ancient
216
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
greece. Most notably Professor Hurst was involved in many years of effort to reconstruct, decipher and translate (in the full sense of the term) poetic manuscripts transcribed in the fourth century BC and that shed new light on a thousand years of earlier civilization. Between 1986 and 1992 Professor Hurst was Dean of the Faculté des Lettres at Geneva and between 2003 and 2006 he held the post of Rector of the University. He has been a visiting professor at the Universities of Montreal, Lausanne, Cluj (Romania), and at the ENS (Ecole Normale Supérieure) in Paris. He also spent periods of study in Rome, becoming a member of the Swiss Institute of Rome, and in Munich, as a recipient of the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). Professor Hurst is a past president of the “Fondation du Conservatoire de musique de Genève” the “Société académique de Genève”, and the “Groupe romand des études grecques et latines”. He is a member of the International Association of Papyrologists, and serves on the scientific committee of the journal GAIA (Grenoble) an interdisciplinary academic forum for the study of all aspects of ancient greek, In 1991 Professor Hurst received an Honorary Doctorate from Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj (1991) and was awarded the title of Commander of the Order of Merit of Romania. Zalina Ismail, is Professor of Neurophysiology, Coordinator of BRAINetwork and Deputy Dean of Research at the School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Zalina Ismail is a medical doctor with a degree in law and a doctorate in neurophysiology. She is a fellow of the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research. She lectures in physiology, bioethics and criminology and is now pursuing a Masters degree in Law. Her research involves the neurogenetics of analgesia and the roles of c-fos and DREAM protein in the central processing of pain. She is also interested in the epigenetics of learning and memory. She coordinates the transdisciplinary BRAINetwork research cluster which focuses on the neuroplasticity of memory and learning and promotes translational research that benefits the community. Markus B. Karner, MSc PhD, is at the Singapore Management University, Singapore. Markus Karner is an ecologist and business professional. He is interested in extending biological models from evolution, ecology, complex systems and organic development to the business world. He has developed a course on biological models for business which he teaches at Singapore Management University (SMU) and also heads Karner Consult Pte Ltd, an independent think tank with an approach largely motivated by discussions with colleagues and associates from the SMU. Prior to starting his consulting venture Dr Karner did research in marine microbial ecology. After obtaining his Ph.D in 1995 from the Observatoire Océanologique, Villefranche-sur-mer and the University of Paris VI, France, he carried out research at the University of Southern California at Los Angeles and the University of Hawaii. His work on applying molecular biology methods to detect and assess the activity of bacterial species in the world’s oceans was published in major specialist journals, and the journal ‘Nature’. He received the U.S. National Science Foundation Medal for Services in Antarctica. Since 2001 Dr Karner, a native of Austria, lives with his family in Singapore. P. Timon McPhearson (and coauthors, Stuart P.D. Gill, Robert Pollack, and Julia E. Sable), are at Columbia University, New York, USA. Dr. McPhearson and his colleagues teach a
Contributors
217
course entitled “Frontiers of Science” at Columbia University. Dr. Mcphearson is a research scientist at Columbia’s Earth Institute. He previously taught science courses at Rutgers University and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), and is now active in curriculum development at both Columbia and AMNH. He is an ecological advisor for AMNH’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and a former fellow of the National Science Foundation. His research interests include the role of cooperation in ecosystems, climate change effects on biodiversity, and science education (HTTPWWWCOLUMBIAEDU CUCSSR). Dr. Gill is a Columbia Science Fellow in the Department of Astronomy. He has been involved in curriculum development for several years in both tertiary and secondary levels. Most notably he has been involved in the development of the ‘New Basics Project’, a fundamental re-envisioning of secondary education. His research interests include the formation and evolution of galaxies and galaxy clusters. Dr. Pollack has been a professor of Biological Sciences since 1978, and is a Lecturer in Psychiatry, Adjunct Professor of Religion, and Director of the Center for the Study of Science and Religion, at Columbia University. He was Dean of Columbia College from 1982-1989. He received the Alexander Hamilton Medal from Columbia University, and was the holder of a Guggenheim Fellowship. He is the author of Signs of Life: The Languages and Meanings of DNA, The Missing Moment: How the Unconscious Shapes Modern Science, and The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith: Meaning, Order and Free Will in Modern Medical Science (HTTP WWWCOLUMBIAEDUCUCSSR). Julia E. Sable, M.S., M.Ed, is a senior research associate in the department of, Biological Sciences, Columbia University, and a doctoral candidate in Science Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Ms. Sable’s research at Columbia University involves understanding the process of membrane-cytoskeleton adhesion in mammalian cells. She is an Adjunct Professor of Biology at The Cooper Union, Barnard and Columbia Colleges. Her science education research focuses on undergraduate science curriculum reform and the process of college science faculty, cognitive apprenticeship. Her Ph.D. thesis focuses on the role of faculty in the implementation process of Frontiers of Science and describes the faculty’s lived-experiences while teaching in this course. She is also an active member of New York University’s Future Science Educators Program and NYAS Science Education division. Svante Pääbo is Director, Department of Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. Svante Pääbo first gained public acclaim for his reference work on the analysis of DNA from archeological samples. He was the first person to show that modern DNA amplification techniques could be applied to ancient DNA, thereby opening windows on our ancestral history and revealing the secrets of human divergence from the apes. His undergraduate education at the University of Uppsala covered subjects ranging from Egyptology and Russian to molecular virology and medical studies. His doctoral studies, based on his successful isolation of DNA in samples taken from Egyptian mummies in museums, were published in Nature. In the 20 years since that ground-breaking work, he has published over 170 papers and used the techniques he developed to carry out analyses of Neanderthal and Ape genomes. He has worked in Zurich, London, California and Uppsala, and since 1997 directs the multidisciplinary Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzeig. He is regarded as the founding father of “paleogenetics”, the application of genetics to paleontology. Svante Pääbo is currently
218
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
using the lense of comparative genomics, to obtain a wide-angle view of species divergence patterns. Research in his laboratory has most recently focused on cross-species comparison of brain-specific gene expression patterns and on the evolution of genes associated with the capacity for human speech. Svante Pääbo has a distinguished record of service on scientific editorial boards and policy-making review committees, and continues to uncover rich new seams of knowledge confluence at a prolific rate. He is the recipient of many academic prizes and honors, including the Louis Jeantet Prize for Medicine, 2005. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is Founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; Professor at Potsdam and Oxford Universities; and Distinguished Science Adviser of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK. H. J. Schellnhuber CBE, was trained as a mathematician and physicist. He received a scholarship to attend the University of Regensburg, and completed a doctorate in theoretical physics there in 1980. He has made remarkable contributions in the field of Earth System Science, especially regarding the theory of complex non-linear systems as well as regional and global environmental analysis. He is the author of over 250 articles or books on these subjects. His theories predict the emergence of planetary “tipping points” or unstable ecosystems, where rapid environmental damage could trigger dramatic knock-on effects to occur on a global scale. As an authority on the analysis and prediction of the impact of changing climatic parameters, he actively serves on many national and international panels for scientific strategies and policy advice regarding environmental and developmental issues. At present, he is chief climate adviser to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. He is also a member of the high-level expert group advising EC President José Manuel Barroso, and is vice-chair of the German Advisory Council of Global Change (WBGU). Among the many scientific honors he has received, he is an elected member of the prestigious Max Planck Society, the US National Academy of Sciences and the German Academy Leopoldina. Edward G. Slingerland is Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair in Chinese Thought and Embodied Cognition in the Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. Edward Slingerland received a B.A. in Asian Languages (Chinese), from Stanford, an M.A. in East Asian Languages (classical Chinese), from UC Berkeley, and a PhD in Religious Studies from Stanford University. His research specialties and teaching interests include Warring States Chinese thought, cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor theory, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and behavioral neuroscience, methodologies for comparative religion and philosophy, virtue ethics and the classical Chinese language. His most recent monograph, entitled What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body & Culture (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming November 2007), argues for the relevance of the natural sciences to the humanities and presents an outline of what a new, embodied approach to the study of culture might look like. He has also recently become a cofounder and director of the Centre for the Study of Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture, which is to be launced at UBC later this year. His internet homepage is HTTPWWWASIAUBCCAINDEXPHP ID . Akimasa Sumi is Professor and Executive Director of the Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability (TIGS), Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science
Contributors
219
(IR3S), University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Prof. Akimasa Sumi received the Ba.D. and M.S. in physics and a PhD in meteorology from the University of Tokyo in 1971, 1973, and 1985 respectively. In 1973, he joined the Japan Meteorological Agency and became involved in developing the fledgling science of numerical weather prediction. From 1979 to 1981 he studied the Asian monsoon at the Department of Meteorology of the University of Hawaii. In 1985 he joined the Geophysical Institute of the University of Tokyo, and became a collaborator on the Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere (TOGA) program, which is dedicated to research on El Nino and seasonal predictions. He has been a Professor at the Center for Climate System Research (CCSR) at the University of Tokyo since 1991, where he has been engaged in developing a climate model and conducting research on climate dynamics including global warming issues. Between 1994 and 2004 he was director of the CCSR. In 2006 he joined a new project as its executive director. “The Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability” (TIGS), has as its mission, to pursue the coordination of disciplines towards attainment of a sustainable society. More information about this initiative is available on HTTPWWWIRSU TOKYOACJPTIGS. Bernard Victorri is Director of research CNRS at the Lattice Laboratory, ENS, Montrouge, France. Bernard Victorri trained as a mathematician before turning to the field of language sciences. In 1981 he obtained his PhD from the University of Montreal for work on mathematical modeling of the cognitive processes. He was appointed Professor of Mathematics at the Polytechnical School of Montreal while also leading a group conducting research into modeling of neurocognitive processes at the Montreal Institute of Biomedical Engineering. In 1984 he returned to his native France to pursue his research, first at the University of Caen and later as a director of research at the CNRS. He has made major contributions to a wide variety of new fields of study, including semantic modeling, analysis and modeling of acoustic variation and automation of processes such as information extraction and lexical disambiguation. He is also particularly interested in the issue of the emergence and structuring of human language. In the book Les origines du langage (2006) of which he is a co-author, he elaborates the theory that the emergence of the narrative faculty has played a more important part in the evolution of modern mankind’s social comportment than has the acquisition of a “higher intelligence” per se. Bernard Victorri heads the “Languages, Language and Cognition” team at the Lattice Laboratory, CNRS (Languages, Texts, Computer Processing, Cognition) since 2000. Francis Waldvogel is the co-founder and Executive Director of the World Knowledge Dialogue Foundation. He holds an M.D. degree from the University of Geneva. Following his postgraduate formation at the Harvard Medical School, he became successively, Director of the Infectious Disease Division, Physician-in-Chief of the Clinical Bacteriology Laboratory, Physician-in-Chief of the Internal Medicine Service, and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Geneva and the University Hospital of Geneva. In parallel with these activities, he was Vice-president of the Swiss Science Council (1992-1995) and served as president of the council of the two Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, ETHZ-Zürich and EPFL-Lausanne (1995-2004. Since 2006, he has been President of the Pro Victimis Foundation (supporting projects in health, education and social aid in developing countries) and is chairman of the Board of Directors of Symbiotics (a company providing services for microfinance projects and investors). He is also
220
A Vision of Transdisciplinarity
the current chairman of the advisory board of the Swiss Science and Innovation Forum and holds an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Trnava-Bratislava. Geoffrey West is President and Distinguished Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. As an undergraduate, Geoffrey West studied mathematics and physics in the 1960s, at Cambridge University in England. He progressed to PhD studies in theoretical physics at Stanford University in California and remained based in the U.S. thereafter. He eventually joined the Stanford physics department faculty and later led the particle theory group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Though he began his academic career and subsequently made his name in the realm of hard-core theoretical particle physics, a long nurtured interest in biology and an unwillingness to acknowledge the operational boundaries between the two domains led him to explore the potential for applying quantitative methods to biological problems such as aging. In the mid-1990s a serendipitous encounter with ecologist Jim Brown initiated his interest in the physics of biological systems. He began in earnest to study the most complex of all systems: life. Since then, he has made major contributions at the confluence of biology and physics, including seminal work (carried out with Brown) on biological scaling. West and his collaborators are credited with providing a rational explanation for the universality of the quarter power scaling laws, based on the idea that life at all scales is sustained by optimized, space-filling fractal networks whose terminal units are invariant. His theory now permits detailed quantitative calculations and predictions of a far broader range of biological phenomena than previously imagined possible. He is currently engaged in exploring just how far these rules have predictive value for understanding such complex phenomena as tumor development and social ecosystems. He also believes the principles he has elucidated can be harnessed to provide quantitative thermodynamic description of the evolution of conscious thought. As President of the transdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute, Geoffrey West epitomizes its goal of exploring the frontiers of knowledge by transcending the usual boundaries. He argues that “big-picture” science can only move forward when researchers allow themselves to ask elementary questions without feeling defensive or vulnerable. In May of 2006, Time magazine cited Geoffrey West in its selection of the world’s top sixteen most influential scientists and thinkers of today. Edward O. Wilson is Pellegrino Research Professor in Entomology at Harvard University, Cambridge, USA. Edward O. Wilson’s career began with the study of the social behavior of ant populations. He demonstrated that certain aspects of ant behavior could be triggered by chemical signals, showing that their behavior was programmed, not learned. He applied these ideas to study the behavior of other animals, including man, concluding that our genes and our environment intertwine to make us what we are. He has been lauded as one of the founders of the modern environmental movement and is a passionate defender of the need for our human society to seek out means of sustainable interaction with Planet Earth, the only home we have. He has long argued that as human beings multiply and use the Earth’s resources to fuel the hedonistic lifestyle practiced by the industrialized countries, the planet’s ecosystem is increasingly threatened. Professor Wilson’s recent publications make a compelling case that mankind must act rapidly to preserve the Earth’s biodiversity for our descendents. Credited with first bringing the concept of biodiversity
Contributors
221
to mass public attention in 1988, almost 20 years later he continues to encourage society to respond with a greater sense of urgency to the irrefutable evidence that the diversity of life on Earth is in rapid decline. Professor Wilson’s many contributions to science have received international recognition. He has received 27 honorary doctoral degrees and more than 70 awards, including the U.S medal of Science (1976), The German Terrestrial Ecology Prize (1987), the French Prix du Institut de la Vie (1990), the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (1990), the Japanese International Prize for Biology (1993), the Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society (1999), and the King Faisal International Prize for Science (2000). His conservation work has also been recognized through the award of the Gold medal of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Audubon Medal of the Audubon Society. His books have also been widely acclaimed and he has twice been awarded the Pulitzer Prize. See the webcast of his introduction to WKD 2006 at www.wkdialogue.ch.Professor Wilson has been appointed WKD 2008 Scientist in Residence.
![[ss] Six Geese A-Laying](https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/ss-six-geese-a-laying_5be87cadb7d7bcf41f4f38ef.jpg)
![[ss] Six Geese A-Laying](https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/ss-six-geese-a-laying_5be87cb0b7d7bcf71f8c9e3a.jpg)
