A Future with Robots: Do We Really Need It?
People’s vision of the technological future changes over time. E.g. the French sociologist Bruno Latour in his paper “Can we go back to Earth?” published in the Vokrug Sveta (Around the World) magazine (2011) pointed out how people’s notions and expectations of benefits the science and technology progress is supposed to bring about were changing. For example, those born in the 1950s would remember the mass enthusiasm about the first manned space flight. People believed then that “space taxis” would very shortly be available to everybody. Now space flights are seen as an important branch of science, but not as a common practice. “Maybe our current expectations about robots, the internet, and information technology would ultimately remain unrealised — because the society wouldn’t be ready to accept them”, noted the lecturer.
The HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (ISSEK) regularly monitors innovation behaviour of the Russian population (since 2009, and the general public opinion about science is studied at the ISSEK since 1995). Surveys conducted during the last 15 years reveal a growing role of science and technology in people’s perception of factors which could facilitate economic growth in Russia. On the whole, people believe that science can change the world, but at the same time their expectations don’t look very optimistic.
Myth 1. People believe science is good for the society
Advanced technologies increasingly penetrate people’s everyday life but, according to the lecturer, not all innovations are warmly welcomed by the population — not by a long shot. Increasingly more people are starting to be concerned about potentially negative consequences of the “fruits of civilisation”, and not just for them personally but for the world generally. E.g. the public concern about the environment in the Austrian town of Zwentendorf where the government planned to build a nuclear power plant resulted in the freezing of the project. Furthermore, people’s unwillingness to accept new technologies was so strong that in 1996 the Austrian government had to include in the national constitution a provision about the country’s official rejection of nuclear energy.
International studies conducted in countries which have embraced post-industrial values show that people there are now more concerned about potential risks associated with S&T progress. They see not just benefits of science, but also harm. Meanwhile, in countries where industrial values dominate, a vast majority of the population see only benefits. Russia has more or less equal shares of people who expect science to open favourable opportunities for their children and grandchildren, and those who are concerned that new discoveries may be applied for the worse.
Myth 2. Smart is the new sexy
There’s a myth shared by many people that taking an interest in science is fashionable while being indifferent to it is something to be ashamed of, and that science is a domain of the young, believes Mr Voynilov. But is this really true? Data collected in the course of the Monitoring Survey of Highly Qualified R&D Personnel (also conducted by the ISSEK) shows that despite the decreasing share of researchers aged between 50-59, and the gradual increase of the number of those aged between 30—39, the share of the youngest scientists (up to 29 years old) remained constant since 2011, at 20% of all Russian researchers. The share of postgraduate students in Russia grew until 2011, but since then has declined sharply. According to the lecture, this was due to two reasons. First, significant changes took place in the Russian education sector in recent years — the number of tuition-free places at universities is decreasing, certain programmes are closing, many areas of study are being merged/consolidated. Second, opinion polls reveal a low prestige of a career ins science in the Russian society. Comparing this data with similar studies in other countries shows that in terms of professional and values-based perception of careers in science Russia is closest to China, where about a third of the population believe being a researcher is prestigious. In the US 80% of the surveyed hold this opinion.
Interestingly, when asked what a country must have to be respected by others, Russians first of all mentioned a highly developed economy, military might, nuclear weapons, and a high science and technology potential. However, they don’t see a high S&T development level as grounds for self-respect, but only for respect by other nations. Maybe that’s why Russians don’t believe opting for a career in science would be a good personal development choice.
As to the “shame” aspect of the myth in question (it would be shameful not to take an interest in science), people generally believe they do have a decent idea about the latest S&T achievements. However, when asked, e.g., how often they watch popular science programmes, most of the respondents answered “very rarely” or “never”. According to the lecturer, this allows to suggest that people think not taking an interest in science is something to be ashamed of, so they answer the first question affirmatively, but later on their total incompetence about scientific matters becomes apparent. E.g. about one tenth of the respondents were not sure that the Earth rotates around the Sun; most of them were convinced only genetically modified potatoes have genes, etc. “In the end, even if Russians really do get involved in science, with that level of scientific literacy we shouldn’t expect to get much out of it”, noted the lecturer.
Myth 3. Science remains under strict public control
Almost a half of the respondents believed science shouldn’t be limited in any way, and researchers need total freedom to study whatever they want. On the other hand, three quarters of the surveyed were not ready to completely trust researchers either, fearing that S&T progress may lead to potentially destructive consequences.
This dualism was especially apparent in the Russians’ opinions about cloning-related research. E.g. the share of those who thought cloning humans or human organs was unacceptable because of ethical reasons remained significant throughout the four rounds of the monitoring study during the whole period of observations. But in the last 10 years a growing trend emerged for the share of the respondents who were willing to accept human and animal cloning in certain special cases.
Generally, Russians believe that researchers need to be controlled by the society, but who will act as judges? If the public should exercise such control, then, in the lecturer’s opinion, the public must be interested in science and have a sufficient understanding of it to be able to make reasonable judgements. But in most cases Russians prefer simply to have a general idea about what’s happening in the domain of science. And this leads to a paradox: on the one hand people do not trust scientists, while on the other they do not want to make an effort to understand what’s really going on.
The question about how much people would like to take part in regulating research activities revealed a rather passive position of the population. People would be quite happy to be generally informed about researchers’ activities, or even to know nothing at all about them — this wouldn’t make their life any worse. Still, a significant proportion of Russians would like to participate in managing science, even if not very actively. “On the one hand we would like ethically ambiguous research to be controlled, but on the other, we are not ready to do it because we lack necessary qualifications, and actually are not that interested either”, stressed the lecturer.
Myth 4. People strive for innovations
Another science-related myth concerns people’s attitude to innovations: is social demand for them really very high? In terms of buying new gadgets, people can be divided into technopragmatists, technophiles, and technophobes. The first group is the largest in Russia. In this case, a decision to buy a new gadget is based on rational considerations; members of this group are not inclined to act impulsively. Technophiles tend to grab all the latest novelties without paying much heed to reason. But there are not many of them in Russia, just about 15%. Technophobes are even less numerous — those who tend to postpone buying new gadgets, and mostly rely on their friends’ and relatives’ advice (i.e. they’d buy a smartphone only when their children insist they do so).
Out of 23 technologies the respondents were asked to chose what they’d like to buy from, the leaders were rooftop solar panels (51% of the respondents were interested in them), smart clothes (50%), environment pollution sensors (50%), electric cars (49%), and telemedicine services (48%). All technologies picked up by Russians were easy to use, and to integrate into everyday life.
The list of unpopular technologies included ethically ambiguous and potentially unsafe ones. Among the outsiders identified through the survey were protein-rich cookies made from grounded crickets (only 13% of the Russians were interested), synthetic meat products (14%), and clothes made from materials produced by deep processing of waste (16%).
Summing up, Yuri Voynilov noted that we could hardly talk about the population’s thirst for radical innovations; rather, people are willing to accept new products which would make their life slightly better. A future with robots may never happen not because the scientists will be unable to come up with adequate solutions, but because there would be no social demand for them.