Skip to content

Blog: Science rather than evidence, but why?

By Steven Dhondt

 

A political system that focuses on technology and the risks of decline raises suspicions of prioritising technocracy over democracy. A recent JRC publication (1) elaborates on how the EU should respond to Draghi’s note on the economic decline in innovation in Europe. According to Draghi, the EU has missed the boat on digital transformation. His demand is clear: we need to do more on innovation and implementation to catch up. The JRC note indicates that policymakers, both national and EU, must now focus more on forward-looking “science for policy” and less on “evidence-based responding.”

The question is whether science for policy is sufficient. After all, is this science a neutral activity? To whom are we supplying knowledge? In his talk to the Nobel Prize Committee, Daron Acemoglu points out how new technology affects the balance between the haves and have-nots. Moreover, he has recently highlighted in several newspaper articles that he does not expect much from the current AI revolution in terms of the productivity leap required. If policymakers bet on a technology that only benefits elites and mostly destroys jobs (“so-so technology”), then we will gain nothing from AI and those AI investments. Acemoglu advocates that technology choices should ensure that the have-nots also share in the benefits of technology. Participation of employees and citizens in the development of technology is essential.

The JRC memorandum also emphasizes this by making fairness central. However, the message about fairness is somewhat defensively formulated: let’s pay attention to this as well because, apparently, citizens are suffering from growing inequality anyway. Fairness involves restoring balance in redistribution between rich and poor, between generations, and between regions, the report says.

Let’s return to our starting question. To whom does Science for Policy actually provide advice? The memo indicates that the EU cannot “sequence” its policy choices: first growth, then hope we have something to redistribute. No, both must happen simultaneously. This means that social policy should also be on the agenda. How else are we going to redistribute? Strangely, the word “social policy” does not appear a single time in the report.

The Gordian knot for EU policy is becoming increasingly clear: how to develop more technology and innovation while also distributing their benefits in such a way that there is a balance between elites and non-elites. A science for policy that is limited to competitiveness, innovation, and technology will be insufficient for the European citizen. How do we ensure that we use technology in such a way that the frontier shifts and the usefulness for the citizen increases? This certainly does not require “sequencing,” but a new political agenda in which social policy is also central. Is the EU ready for that? Let’s pick up this discussion at the GI-NI Final Conference in Brussels on February 3.

You can register by following this link: https://ceps.eu/eventregistration?eventid=a1GQA000003RF7i2AG

  1. Schwaag-Serger, S., Soete, L., Stierna, J. (2024) Scientific Report – For an Innovative, Sustainable and Fair Economy in Europe. Sevilla: JRC