Governments across the world tend — perhaps increasingly — to point to the importance of the so-called “STEM” subjects of science, technology, engineering and math. Global economic competitiveness is the aim, with innovation being seen as one of the drivers.
However, are these assumptions and conclusions correct and justified, and could the social sciences play a greater role in enabling us to reach our economic and societal potential?
Science and technology have played key roles in the success of economic development throughout the ages. Germany’s export surpluses in manufactured goods have long been built upon engineering excellence. The great global challenges such as climate change clearly require scientific excellence to understand and analyze the problems, and to develop appropriate responses.
Illustration: Yusha
I should declare an interest — I’ve always been a great fan of the sciences: My late mother (Anne McLaren) was a geneticist who, among other things, undertook early research behind in vitro fertilization (IVF), and my late father (Donald Michie) was a code-breaker at Bletchley Park during World War II, who went on to become a pioneer of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
My university department (of continuing education) includes Oxford’s professor of the public understanding of science.
However, let’s consider the above scientific developments.
Firstly, the importance of “national systems of innovation” was identified, analyzed and described by Chris Freeman — a social scientist. It was his understanding of how different aspects of the economic, political and social structures worked together and interlinked that was key. This includes the educational system, the financial system and the political and regulatory system and institutions. And those institutions are staffed by people, whose behavior and interactions play a key role in how those institutions work, and what effect they will have on economic growth.
Likewise with regulation — the social aspects are key. So the science and technology cannot — or certainly should not — be separated from the political and institutional framework and influences. These latter require social sciences to analyze the processes involved, and to inform appropriate policy development and application.
Similarly with IVF, it cannot be understood as a scientific development in isolation. Its use is regulated. In the UK it was the Warnock Commission that advised on appropriate regulation, and not only was this not an exclusively scientific endeavor, on the contrary, Anne McLaren was actually the only scientist on the commission.
In terms of code-breaking, I came across a fascinating example recently of how engineering cannot be understood in isolation. It is well known that the German code was broken when a message was repeated without the Enigma Machine (which translated the message into code) being reset. It was vital that the machine be reset after each transmission. Resending a message without resetting gave crucial clues that enabled the code to be broken.
I was recently sent an interview with my late father in which he was asked about the code-breaking at Bletchley Park. Interestingly, he pointed out that it would have been a simple task to have engineered the Enigma Machine to prevent it being able to send a new message until, and unless, it was reset. In other words, there could have been an engineering solution, which would have prevented the code from being broken. A simple task — particularly given Germany’s engineering excellence.
Indeed, one might expect that very engineering excellence to have led naturally to an engineering solution being considered and applied. Why wasn’t it?
Donald Michie’s explanation was that while Germany was excellent at engineering, they were also great believers in discipline, and perhaps most especially military discipline. If the Enigma Machine had to be reset after each transmission, then those would be the orders. Such orders would surely be followed, the machine would be reset, and there would be no problem in need of a solution.
Whether or not this answer to the puzzle is correct, there is no doubt that what needs to be explained is human behavior — not just engineering.
The clear conclusion is that to understand any of these issues requires an understanding of human behavior, whether they be consumers, employees, soldiers, managers or regulators; and also the behavior of people collectively, within organizations — whether these be companies, armies, universities or regulatory authorities. Such understanding comes from the social sciences.
Thus, IVF involves the medical science, but also the regulatory and legislative environment. Armies depend on orders being issued and obeyed, alongside engineering solutions regarding both armaments and code-making and breaking.
The social sciences are necessary to analyze and understand these social processes, and to develop appropriate policies — corporate and public — to utilize our scientific and engineering knowledge to best effect. There can be no doubt that the social sciences matter.
Jonathan Michie is professor of innovation and knowledge exchange at Kellogg College, University of Oxford.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under