I recently had the opportunity to present my research at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies, as a culmination of my year there as a Visiting Researcher. I have posted the transcript and slides on the James Martin Institute website.

It was a useful talk, though I am not able to give too much empirical data yet as my data collection and analysis is still ongoing.  Check back in a year! 

I'm in the process of preparing for the first Policy Foresight Programme for 2007, a seminar on perverse subsidies and institutional roadblocks to reform.  A main topic of the seminar will be how to change a system of governance that is based on concepts from the industrial revolution (greater efficency and accounting for only those things that can be measured) to a system that incorporates things that are valued, but not quantifably so (like protecting the environment).  As ever, Calvin & Hobbes have something to say on the matter:

My mind's been going again.  I'm back on my morning schedule, and that provides me with a precious few moments in the day as the sun rises to sit back with a fresh cup of tea and just enjoy the view for a bit.  A couple of times a week, I'll try to post a little thought here, just a postcard from my room of what's running through my mind.

Today, it's regarding a talk I am giving tomorrow, called 'governing the unknown knowns: a reply to Jerry Ravetz'.  Ravetz, a fellow at the James Martin Institute, gave a talk two weeks ago called 'Governing the science of the unknown unknowns' as part of the Institute's Governance of Science seminar series.  Pulling from Rumsfeld's famous 'unknown unknown' quote, Ravetz said that a way for keeping civilization from falling into some nasty ('wicked' is the technical term) scientific/social conundrums, like global warming, is to better prepare ourselves for when these 'UUs' pop into the 'known' area.  His argument is that once things that we don't know we don't know become known, the nature of how we know them is critical.  If the UU becomes a 'hard fact', and we know this 'fact', then it is a known known.  If we do not know the precise nature of the UU, but do know that it exists with some degree of certainty, it becomes a known unknown.  If, on the other hand (yes, I now have three hands!), the UU becomes known as a 'fact', but only to some and not to all, then it falls into the unknown known category.  This, Ravetz claims, is the worst possible outcome, because society is either rejecting the 'fact' or someone is concealing it from others.  We don't want unknown knowns, Ravetz argues.

 That is where I take issue. My reply is basically a statement that, in issues that are scientifically and socially complex, you will always have unknown knowns, because any way of framing the issue will necessarily favour some information ('facts') over others, thereby making the others 'unknown knowns'.  The goal shouldn't be to squash the unknown knowns, but rather to recognise that they will always exist and understand how to use them constructively.  

If you understand all of that, then you're one step ahead of me :-)  It's time for some coffee to see if I can pull together a 20 minute presentation ..

After a lot of discussion, I am pleased to announce the creation of the James Martin Institute's Policy Foresight Programme.  Working with the Programme's Director, Sir Crispin Tickell, I will organise up to six 1-day seminars a year on issues of 'science, technology, and the environment in order to identify leverage points in current policy that could have significant long-term benefits for civilization.'  The first one will be on the future of agriculture and the food supply chain.  I'll post the draft overview in the next few days, but for now, what do you see as the most significant problem facing agriculture and the food supply chain today - one that could possible jeopardise the whole system if not addressed in the next few years?

This week is the big week at the James Martin Institute. On the second birthday of the Institute, we are hosting our first World Forum on Science and Civilization, a 4-day affair with over 50 speakers and well over 200 delegates. The topic for the forum is ‘Tomorrow’s People: The challenge of technologies for life extension and enhancement’, and will include discussion on how technologies may help us life longer, stronger, healthier lives. It will do so, however, by critically examining whether these advances are ones we want, and who ‘we’ are. It will advance questions on whether we are able to govern the pace of technological development.

Two keys aspects for those of you reading this (i.e. online) are that all of the Plenary sessions will be webcasted, and any and all discussion is encouraged via the online discussion board. We’re planning on having a monitor in the Entrance Hall of the business school that will be displaying the most current posts from the board as a way to integrate virtual and physical realities.

I should also mention that I will be helping to produce a Daily News Brief on the events of the Forum. It will be available by 11pm GMT every night on the Forum homepage. Take a look at Issue 0. Nifty, eh?

The James Martin Institute (my office) is part of the James Martin 21st Century School, a collection of ten research centres in Oxford with the task ‘to think imaginatively and positively about the problems and the opportunities that the future will bring.’ The School includes, for instance, the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute and the Environmental Change Institute.

Recently, it appears that Baroness Susan Greenfield, head of the Royal Institute and Director of another section of the School, the Institute for the Future of the Mind, has been trying to make South Australia an international partner with the 21st Century School.

The School, like the Martin Institute, is keen on developing international links with similar institutions. The Martin Institute, for instance, has good connections with the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s Initiative on Nanotechnology and Society, Harvard’s Program on Science, Technology, and Society, and Arizona State’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.

The Martin Institute turns two on 16 March this year, and to celebrate, we are launching our the first bi-annual World Forum on Science and Civilization. This year’s theme is ‘Tomorrow’s People: technologies for life extension and enhancement’. We have a fantastic range of speakers, and the topics, such as ‘Living Stronger?’ and ‘Can we choose our future?’ are one’s that will be close to my own research. Stay tuned for more information!

I've just picked up a new job. I'll now be working through the James Martin Institute to organise a seminar/conference series with Sir Crispin Tickell on Science, Technology, and the Environment. It should be a fantastic way to put many of my skills to the test. Topics for discussion include:

• environmental refugees
• the future of humanity
• water problems (scarcity, pollution, etc)
• effects of increasing populations
• different patterns of consumption
• the meaning of development
• And many others

We're hoping to put on up to six of these seminars a year. So, what do you think is the most pressing matter concerning the environment?