I started a series of posts about public/engagement/consultation/understanding of science projects on Jan.14.09 (here) after reading Richard Jones’s and Andrew Maynard’s posts on the topic. I digressed somewhat from the point they were making about the potential usefulness of these projects for science literacy (as I recall that wasn’t actually stated; I think it was strongly implied) and for discussing the kinds of science funding for projects and products that the public wants and will accept.

I have a final point after registering some concern that public engagement, etc. projects are sometimes misused as prophylactic treatments (for public panics about science) and pointing out that the public does make its preferences for scientific applications known through the marketplace (although possibly describing that process as a collaboration was a bit excessive on my part).

There’s been some research on risk and culture done by the folks at the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. They seem to be suggesting that the public’s assessment and response to risk regarding emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is rooted in factors and cultural (not ethnicity or high art but individualism vs. communitarianism) attitudes which are relatively fixed. (I have more about that project here and here in previous postings.)

I have a problem with this thinking and here’s why. If you look at the material that was written about electriciy when that technology was being introduced (When Old Technologies were New by Carolyn Marvin), you’ll find some very similar attitudes and comments to what was then an emerging new technology in the marketplace. Presumably, people haven’t changed that much since the 19th century. Marvin’s book points out startling similarities regarding concerns and anxieties then and now.

Still, we have electricity (electric light, telephones, etc.) in our homes, on our persons, and at the office. Somehow in the midst of the public panics and anxieties, we instituted the changes and eventually took them for granted.

I think that in the end the adoption or nonadoption of emerging technologies can be viewed as a process, a kind of dynamic conversation with an outcome which cannot be determined beforehand. After all, the concept of an atom was first proposed by Leucippus in 4?? BCE. It took many centuries and changes before we seriously undertook the idea around the 17th century CE to develop science as we understand today.

One quick thing: I found this site about art history very interesting. Smarthistory is being developed as an online resource. It’s easy to use and it’s been put together by Beth Harmon, Director of Digital Learning at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and many other informed folks.