This article gives an update on preparations for the widely anticipated "Social Forum Science and Democracy", and raises questions for social movements to discuss. For example, the circulation and discussion of this important movement question: "Is elite control of science and technology a strategic bolt in the global machinery of Empire that we need to unscrew?"
Probably many readers will already be aware of the science and democracy forum in Belem, Brazil beginning in the two days directly before the World Social Forum (January 26-27 2009): website in four languages 
http://fsm-sciences.org/?lang=en
Here is the tentative agenda for discussions http://fsm-sciences.org/spip.php?article311
One of the intentions of the forum is to wrestle with the problem of colonial and private profit "science." Perhaps your community has had experience of such science. Those attending will talk about how this type of science can be changed or replaced by the peoples on all the continents. Anyone attending the World Social Forum is also encouraged to arrive early and attend the Science and Democracy Forum on January 26th. Particularly welcome are experiences of building knowledge that is accountable to local communities. For example http://www.pratec.org.pe/
Social movements might be expected to be broadly sympathetic to the idea that science is being commodified by private profit corporations and that this needs to be stopped (!). As grassroots social movements we have tended to focus more on particular technologies than worrying about the political, financial, and philosophical organization of scientific research itself. Perhaps it is now time that we also thought about expanding our interests to include the critique of science, technology, & the way knowledge is organized by the capitalist, hierarchical, & colonial processes of globalization. Is science an important strategic consideration and a key aspect of how coercive economic power is articulated in the 21st century? or is science just another "issue" among so many other issues? This has certainly been a topic raised and debated in big gatherings before, for example http://www.mallusk.net/grassrootsgathering/pgatechne.html
If we agree with the growing critique of science/&technologies, what would be the best way for social movements to articulate this critique? In practice it seems these issues are not so theoretical or philosophical for us when we place them in the context of definite political struggles - biotechnology, climate science, and biodiversity seem to be the issues where such a critique is already being articulated. There are very clear examples of how science & particular technologies are being used undemocratically.
The immediate focus of the social forum science and democracy is to create a two-way dialogue between scientists and citizens. While the two way citizen-scientist dialouge is undoubtable important, perhaps many of us would also like to stretch these discussions also to include "non-citizens". In Eurocentric thinking indigenous people, migrants, the stateless, political dissidents, and many others have often been considered "non-citizens." The more important dialogue (of which citizen-to-scientist discussions are a small part) is dialouge between non-citizens and science masters (such as the biotec agribusiness corporate empires). These dialouges are potentially quite confrontational.
The most effective strategists for the anti-globalization social movements (of the last 500 years) have come from the global South, particualrly from indigenous and local knowledge communities. The indigenous communities in various regions of the world also have traditional systems of knowledge. How is it that science might be made accountable to these and other systems of traditional knowledge? How do we link the discussions of these issues that are happening in Europe and elsewhere with the discussion of these issues that are happening in indigenous and other communities of the global south? Debates about biotechnology are extremely fierce in places like Paraguay where huge swaths of land have been made over into pesticide intensive GM biofuels plantations to the dismay of local peoples. We can only hope that the location of the meetings (deep in the Amazon) will facilitate participation.
Personally, I have only engaged with the social forum processes a few times because my political interests correlate more to bottom up grassroots politics with an emphasis on direct action. To be clear, the social forum process also welcomes and includes these political interests, alongside many other forms of lefty politics such as political parties, civil society organizations, etc. In the social forums process there are so many different political tendencies that even standards of what constitutes democratic inclusion and decision making vary! In this respect a common feeling about the social forum process is that while it doesn't seem to be a good place to expect big things to get done, it is usually a place where there will be a lot of people. And therefore social forum events are a good place to meet others of similiar interests in order to plan & organize campaigns.
Interestingly, the initiative to do a science and democracy forum at Belem did not come out of the WSF planning committees, but emerged more independently from various technology politics NGOs who are closely connected to the growing grassroots critique of science, notably Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, France, but also many others. See http://fm-sciences.org/spip.php?article68〈=en for a list of many of the organizers. The impressive list of endorsing organizations and individuals shows that there really is a building momentum to the critique of science. Endorsers include the http://www.etcgroup.org (previously Rural Advancement Foundation International, RAFI) who were one of the earliest to participate in the critique of science. Despite in some ways coming from "outside", the initiative really has had some success in getting itself semi-inserted and acknowledged by the official World Social Forum process, even if the idea of science and democracy has in the past fairly consistently been left off the axis of social forums.
For grassroots social movements many questions remain. What, if any, are the best ways for us to engage with the process? How can we help whatever emerges from the social forums be as inclusive as possible? Are there other potential places to bring together this critique of science and technologies? What are the best ways for us to engage with the growing critique of science? When we think about the way elite control of science has affected the development of biotechnology are there insights that our movement has learned that we can share with others? Biotechnology, climate science, biodiversity, safety from chemicals in the workplace (especially now the new molecular regime of nanoscience is now being put in place). All of these areas and much more are affected by the organization of science.
*So* bring this important movement question to your next local campaign meeting: Is elite control of science and technology a strategic bolt in the global machinery of Empire that we need to unscrew? Or is it just another issue on an already busy social movements agenda..?
http://fsm-sciences.org/?lang=en Here is the tentative agenda for discussions
http://fsm-sciences.org/spip.php?article311 One of the intentions of the forum is to wrestle with the problem of colonial and private profit "science." Perhaps your community has had experience of such science. Those attending will talk about how this type of science can be changed or replaced by the peoples on all the continents. Anyone attending the World Social Forum is also encouraged to arrive early and attend the Science and Democracy Forum on January 26th. Particularly welcome are experiences of building knowledge that is accountable to local communities. For example
http://www.pratec.org.pe/ Social movements might be expected to be broadly sympathetic to the idea that science is being commodified by private profit corporations and that this needs to be stopped (!). As grassroots social movements we have tended to focus more on particular technologies than worrying about the political, financial, and philosophical organization of scientific research itself. Perhaps it is now time that we also thought about expanding our interests to include the critique of science, technology, & the way knowledge is organized by the capitalist, hierarchical, & colonial processes of globalization. Is science an important strategic consideration and a key aspect of how coercive economic power is articulated in the 21st century? or is science just another "issue" among so many other issues? This has certainly been a topic raised and debated in big gatherings before, for example
http://www.mallusk.net/grassrootsgathering/pgatechne.html If we agree with the growing critique of science/&technologies, what would be the best way for social movements to articulate this critique? In practice it seems these issues are not so theoretical or philosophical for us when we place them in the context of definite political struggles - biotechnology, climate science, and biodiversity seem to be the issues where such a critique is already being articulated. There are very clear examples of how science & particular technologies are being used undemocratically.
The immediate focus of the social forum science and democracy is to create a two-way dialogue between scientists and citizens. While the two way citizen-scientist dialouge is undoubtable important, perhaps many of us would also like to stretch these discussions also to include "non-citizens". In Eurocentric thinking indigenous people, migrants, the stateless, political dissidents, and many others have often been considered "non-citizens." The more important dialogue (of which citizen-to-scientist discussions are a small part) is dialouge between non-citizens and science masters (such as the biotec agribusiness corporate empires). These dialouges are potentially quite confrontational.
The most effective strategists for the anti-globalization social movements (of the last 500 years) have come from the global South, particualrly from indigenous and local knowledge communities. The indigenous communities in various regions of the world also have traditional systems of knowledge. How is it that science might be made accountable to these and other systems of traditional knowledge? How do we link the discussions of these issues that are happening in Europe and elsewhere with the discussion of these issues that are happening in indigenous and other communities of the global south? Debates about biotechnology are extremely fierce in places like Paraguay where huge swaths of land have been made over into pesticide intensive GM biofuels plantations to the dismay of local peoples. We can only hope that the location of the meetings (deep in the Amazon) will facilitate participation.
Personally, I have only engaged with the social forum processes a few times because my political interests correlate more to bottom up grassroots politics with an emphasis on direct action. To be clear, the social forum process also welcomes and includes these political interests, alongside many other forms of lefty politics such as political parties, civil society organizations, etc. In the social forums process there are so many different political tendencies that even standards of what constitutes democratic inclusion and decision making vary! In this respect a common feeling about the social forum process is that while it doesn't seem to be a good place to expect big things to get done, it is usually a place where there will be a lot of people. And therefore social forum events are a good place to meet others of similiar interests in order to plan & organize campaigns.
Interestingly, the initiative to do a science and democracy forum at Belem did not come out of the WSF planning committees, but emerged more independently from various technology politics NGOs who are closely connected to the growing grassroots critique of science, notably Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, France, but also many others. See
http://fm-sciences.org/spip.php?article68〈=en for a list of many of the organizers. The impressive list of endorsing organizations and individuals shows that there really is a building momentum to the critique of science. Endorsers include the http://www.etcgroup.org (previously Rural Advancement Foundation International, RAFI) who were one of the earliest to participate in the critique of science. Despite in some ways coming from "outside", the initiative really has had some success in getting itself semi-inserted and acknowledged by the official World Social Forum process, even if the idea of science and democracy has in the past fairly consistently been left off the axis of social forums. For grassroots social movements many questions remain. What, if any, are the best ways for us to engage with the process? How can we help whatever emerges from the social forums be as inclusive as possible? Are there other potential places to bring together this critique of science and technologies? What are the best ways for us to engage with the growing critique of science? When we think about the way elite control of science has affected the development of biotechnology are there insights that our movement has learned that we can share with others? Biotechnology, climate science, biodiversity, safety from chemicals in the workplace (especially now the new molecular regime of nanoscience is now being put in place). All of these areas and much more are affected by the organization of science.
*So* bring this important movement question to your next local campaign meeting: Is elite control of science and technology a strategic bolt in the global machinery of Empire that we need to unscrew? Or is it just another issue on an already busy social movements agenda..?
Homepage:
