Presentation by Prof Andy Stirling, STEPS Centre at the Royal Society Policy Lab on 14 June 2010. Prof Stirling is a co-director of the STEPS Centre. For more information on the Manifesto project mentioned in the presentation, visit www.anewmanifesto.org

1. Science and innovation for development: where have the politics gone? Andy Stirling SPRU – science and technology policy research presentation to ‘PolicyLab’ event Royal Society, London 14 th June, 2010

2. Innovation for Development Linked challenges of poverty reduction, social justice and environmental sustainability are the great moral and political imperatives of our age Annual global spend on research and development exceeds $ 1 trillion – but driven by imperfect incentives: private profit, IP, rich consumers – military and security are the single largest area of expenditure Key aim: to better orient world innovation towards global imperatives – requires radical shift in current practice and politics of innovation opening more deliberate choices of which directions to pursue Crucial problem: these debates presently marginalised or polarised – current policy lacks needed arenas, institutions, metrics, language New Manifesto : tries to help catalyse vibrant new politics of innovation

4. time Politics-Denial in Technology for Development PAST FUTURE ‘ linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate eg: “history is a race to advance technology ” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering GM critics are “‘ anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’ , opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself .” - United Nations Fails to appreciate importance of non-technical forms of innovation – creative ( eg: music in UK &many sub-Saharan African nations ) – cultural ( eg: gender relations transforming livelihoods ) – organisational ( eg: new regulations or contractual forms for services ) – behavioural ( eg: energy use and mobility expectations ) – political ( eg: property rights, land tenure, educational access )

5. time PAST FUTURE Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives… no politics … no choice ! Politics-Denial in Technology for Development ‘ linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate eg: “history is a race to advance technology ” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering GM critics are “‘ anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’ , opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself .” - United Nations

6. time PAST FUTURE Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice ! Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast? … who leads? Politics-Denial in Technology for Development ‘ linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate eg: “history is a race to advance technology ” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering GM critics are “‘ anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’ , opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself .” - United Nations

7. time PAST FUTURE Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice ! Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast?’ … who leads? Seriously neglects questions over: which way? …what alternatives? says who? …why? Politics-Denial in Technology for Development ‘ linear’ technical understandings of innovation still dominate eg: “history is a race to advance technology ” - UK Royal Academy of Engineering GM critics are “‘ anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’ , opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself .” - United Nations

8. space of technological possibilities time Technological Development as Optimisation Mainstream policy represents innovation for development as: - ‘sound science’ - material constraints - technical convergence - market equilibrium many different starting points are seen to lead to the same ‘optimal’ technological and institutional configurations diversity converges to function-specific optimality

9. Closing Down Choice in Technology Development Common picture arising in all studies of technology in society – it’s the other way around! from any single starting point, there typically branch out many equally possible (technically feasible and socially viable) developmental paths … but: multiple diverging directions time

10. A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’ economics: homeostasis ( Sahal, 85 ) lock-in ( Arthur, 89 ) regimes ( Nelson & Winter, 77 ) trajectories ( Dosi, 82 ) time Closing Down Choice in Technology Development

11. A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83) path-dependence (David, 85) path creation (Karnoe, 01) time Closing Down Choice in Technology Development development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’

12. A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation philosophy/politics: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91) entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02) time Closing Down Choice in Technology Development development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’

13. A diversity of processes ‘close down’ possible directions of change philosophy/politics: autonomy closure entrapment alignment social studies: shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03) expectations (Lente, 00) imaginaries (Jasanoff, 05) time Closing Down Choice in Technology Development development is ‘vector’ not ‘scalar’ economics: homeostasis lock-in regimes trajectories history: contingency momentum path-dependence path creation

17. Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’ Many possible pathways to ‘sustainable energy’: … which directions will we go?

18. property rights / resource access demand restructuring? behaviour change? efficient end use? service reform? renewable energy? carbon capture and storage? nuclear power? … which directions will we go? Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’ Many possible innovation pathways to ‘sustainable energy’:

19. centralised resources? transport fuels? low temperature heat? distributed generation? … which directions will we go? Alternative ‘Sustainable Energy Strategies’ Many possible innovation pathways to ‘sustainable energy’: property rights / resource access demand restructuring? behaviour change? efficient end use? service reform? renewable energy? carbon capture and storage? nuclear power?

21. Implications for Distribution Ensuring equitable spread in risks & benefits is hard enough – ‘ trickle down’ for single technological path (eg: industrial agriculture) But for different pathways: complexity and stakes rise massively – GM crops; marker assist; industrial / eco / participatory breeding Innovation paths of marginal people are the most excluded – co-ops; green housing; community sanitation; farmer first; Honey Bee Existing innovation paths driven by particular interests & priorities – private profit, military advantage, intellectual property, rich consumers Falsity of linear technical understanding of innovation means this matters ‘ One track race’ development rhetorics undermine least powerful – denies democratic challenge: accountability, criticism, alternatives

22. The Value of Diversity ‘ Direction’: not about seeking single ‘optimal’ development path but variety of disparate pathways, addressing plural needs and contexts Diversity in development pathways offers many benefits: – defends against powerful forces of ‘lock-in’ and ‘crowding out’ – offers more space for addressing most marginalised needs – hedges surprise and confers resilience under deep uncertainties – allows more room for experimental niches and social learning – encourages social and organisational, as well technical, innovation – accommodates otherwise irreconcilable values and interests – foster more socially robust processes of innovation itself But diversity is not a panacea: – trade-offs, opportunity / transaction costs, foregone learning and scale threatened by globalisation, harmonisations, standardisation Which diversity? – still requires democratic accountable social choice

23. A ‘3D Agenda’: direction, distribution, diversity for global innovation to directly address poverty & environment Practical Policy Recommendations – ‘ agendas ’: new open, inclusive national and international institutions – ‘ funding ’: progressive rising share towards poverty and environment – ‘ capacity ’: bridging professions for science, technology and practice – ‘ organisation ’: networks linking public, private and civil society – ‘ accountability ’: responsibilities for transparent reporting and monitoring