Potato bags

Column Kees Groeneveld, FHI e-totaal   “The misery for planners is that people are not potato sacks.” I was raised with that statement during my studies in planning at the University of Amsterdam. It occurred to me again during a 'consultation session' on the National Science Agenda. A select group that is involved in the formulation and implementation of government policy for science and technology was invited to provide feedback on all kinds of ideas for the future. If the next government can spend an extra billion on research, whether or not together with the business community, which research should be given priority? Last April, literally everyone was invited to submit questions that could give direction to science. What do we want to know, find out? Twelve thousand, 12,000, questions were submitted. After an entire process of judging and conferences around those questions, the 'pillars' for the science agenda were presented to the cabinet in November 2015. Then, in the spring months of 2016, 'routes' were formulated, twenty-four in total. Each route was drawn up with a whole group of people from that enormous network of people involved in science and technology. Let me mention a few: personalized medicine; use big data responsibly; smart industry; smart liveable cities; energy transition; the quantum/nano revolution; materials; measuring and detecting. That doesn't sound all that surprising to us in the technology world. But then: resilient and meaningful societies; between conflict and cooperation; youth and education. What should exact scientists and technicians do with such subjects, vague routes for us? Now there was already some commotion in the spring of 2015. It was reported in the press that every citizen of the Netherlands was invited to provide input for the National Science Agenda. Social themes were emphatically requested. Alpha and gamma subjects were awaited. Well, guess what? In the discussions I attended, the consultation sessions, it turned out that the routes that have been formulated are always about hard science, technology, yes, but also always about the social impact, support, human behavior. And how was that experienced by the predominantly science-oriented attendees? Surprisingly positive, enriching even. Every now and then the economy turned the corner. Not new, you might say, since the government uses these types of processes to extract money from companies. No, that was certainly not new. But now it became clearer than ever that economics, dealing with money, is not an exact science. 'Who's going to pay for that?' is a behavioral science question, just as much as the question of whether people will live where the planners think is good for them. Which technology will people accept and which will they not accept? How will hackers behave? Who is actually able and willing to do the research that we think should be done? Indeed, people are not potato sacks. We can find it very logical and rational that we should all switch to sustainable energy. But if Iran starts producing plenty of oil again, the world market, also a behavioral mechanism, will determine that the investment will not be made. “Yes, if we lower the energy price for sustainable energy, everyone will use that energy.” “No, if the energy price is too low, no one will invest in alternative energy sources or energy-saving measures.” And what if we leave the choosing of research topics to the smart scientists? Then they start doing research that they 'like'. Another behavioral science term. The chairman of the day, Rob Hamer from Unilever, asked whether anyone had discovered real 'game changers' during the sessions. When there was a bit of silence, he himself mentioned that big game changer in his conclusion: the humanities, sciences and social sciences are challenged to jointly set out research goals and trajectories. That fits in with the spirit of the times, another behavioral concept. But the biggest game changer could well be that economics will really take its scientifically correct place again, indeed on the humanities/gamma side. Economics is behavior.