Chapter Interlude

This interlude chapter—between the analysis and assessment of the status-quo (chapters 2–5; first part of the book) and the visions and prospects for the future of interdisciplinary knowledge production (the following chapters 6–8; second part of the book)—addresses shortcomings of the instrumentalist view of interdisciplinarity and its isolated focus on recipes and organization procedures. This chapter questions the positivist fact/value dichotomy; it refers to critical materialist and transcendental pragmatist thinking; it considers viewpoints of environmentalism and reflects on insights from phenomenology and from Martin Heidegger; and it discusses recent developments resulting from a participatory approach among the sciences which could contribute to a new view of human-nature relations (self-organization theory, complex systems theory). Essentially, the interlude chapter paves the way for a critical-reflexive concept of problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Based on the analysis here, the final three chapters provide a theoretical framework (chapter 6) and present case studies (chapter 7 & 8) showing that a more critical-reflexive perspective in (and with) interdisciplinarity is feasible and can be incorporated in the practice of interdisciplinarity for a sustainable future of our knowledge society

Chapter 1 Introduction

Interdisciplinarity—including its cognate transdisciplinarity—is a hallmark of contemporary knowledge production. The term is omnipresent in science, technology, and economy as well as in society and higher education—fueling the rhetoric of present-day knowledge politics. But what does interdisciplinarity stand for? What is, what was, and what should interdisciplinarity be, particularly for the future of our knowledge production? – These fundamental and related questions and their relevance to science policy and research practice are the subject of this introductory chapter. Starting from the diagnosis that interdisciplinarity has lost its critical momentum and its original spirit, the need for a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity is sketched. In light of the ambivalence of the technosciences and the challenge of sustainable development, this engaged philosophy provides a novel perspective on interdisciplinarity in science policy and research practice. The opening chapter outlines the difference between a strategic-instrumentalist and a critical-reflexive view of interdisciplinarity, giving greater weight to the latter considering the future of our knowledge production. It sets out the line of argumentation pursued throughout the book, which seeks to inject a more critical viewpoint into the vibrant discourse on the concept and practice of interdisciplinarity for sustainable development

Chapter 2 Philosophy and plurality

What exactly do—and should—the terms “interdisciplinarity” and its cognate “transdisciplinarity” mean? This chapter exposes different understandings of inter- and transdisciplinarity and sets out a foundation for a critique of innumerable usages of these hype terms. It starts by presenting a plurality of motives behind these notions, followed by criteria characterizing the semantic core of the notions, namely (i) the existence of (disciplinary or academic) boundaries and (ii) the transgression or overcoming of those boundaries. Based on the dialectic consideration of boundaries and with reference to well-established distinctions in the philosophy of science, a plurality of four types is shown: interdisciplinarity with regard to (a) objects, (b) knowledge/theories concepts, (c) methods/practices, and further, (d) problems/issues. Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to the four types. All four types can be illustrated by research programs that are labeled “interdisciplinary”: nanoresearch, complex systems theory/chaos theory, biomimicry/bionics, and technology assessment/sustainability research. In this chapter special emphasis is given to the complex relation between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Arguments favoring a critical-reflexive concept of problem-oriented interdisciplinarity going beyond what is typically associated with transdisciplinarity are presented. This terminological clarification constitutes the very basis for the Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity set forth in this book

Chapter 8 Technology and the future

Technology Assessment (TA) is an interdisciplinary field that deals with emerging, technology-induced societal problems for the purpose of shaping technology and technological development. TA is a perfect case for problem-oriented interdisciplinarity at the science-society interface. This chapter goes further and sheds light on a specific approach in TA, namely Prospective Technology Assessment (ProTA), which includes critical-reflexive elements in a prospective or anticipatory assessment of science and technology in very early phases of new and emerging knowledge fields; in this light ProTA can also be seen as an assessment of science (Liebert/Schmidt 2010). ProTA complements and extends well-established methods of Technology Assessment that have been used in policy consultancy from the late 1960s on. Applications of this approach to the field of synthetic/systems biology illustrate interdisciplinary core elements of Prospective Technology Assessment. It turns out that the critical-reflexive concept of interdisciplinarity incorporated in ProTA can be regarded as meta-instrumentalist: Thus ProTA contributes to the self-critique and self-reflexivity of the science/technology system

Chapter 1 Introduction

Interdisciplinarity—including its cognate transdisciplinarity—is a hallmark of contemporary knowledge production. The term is omnipresent in science, technology, and economy as well as in society and higher education—fueling the rhetoric of present-day knowledge politics. But what does interdisciplinarity stand for? What is, what was, and what should interdisciplinarity be, particularly for the future of our knowledge production? – These fundamental and related questions and their relevance to science policy and research practice are the subject of this introductory chapter. Starting from the diagnosis that interdisciplinarity has lost its critical momentum and its original spirit, the need for a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity is sketched. In light of the ambivalence of the technosciences and the challenge of sustainable development, this engaged philosophy provides a novel perspective on interdisciplinarity in science policy and research practice. The opening chapter outlines the difference between a strategic-instrumentalist and a critical-reflexive view of interdisciplinarity, giving greater weight to the latter considering the future of our knowledge production. It sets out the line of argumentation pursued throughout the book, which seeks to inject a more critical viewpoint into the vibrant discourse on the concept and practice of interdisciplinarity for sustainable development

Chapter 8 Technology and the future

Technology Assessment (TA) is an interdisciplinary field that deals with emerging, technology-induced societal problems for the purpose of shaping technology and technological development. TA is a perfect case for problem-oriented interdisciplinarity at the science-society interface. This chapter goes further and sheds light on a specific approach in TA, namely Prospective Technology Assessment (ProTA), which includes critical-reflexive elements in a prospective or anticipatory assessment of science and technology in very early phases of new and emerging knowledge fields; in this light ProTA can also be seen as an assessment of science (Liebert/Schmidt 2010). ProTA complements and extends well-established methods of Technology Assessment that have been used in policy consultancy from the late 1960s on. Applications of this approach to the field of synthetic/systems biology illustrate interdisciplinary core elements of Prospective Technology Assessment. It turns out that the critical-reflexive concept of interdisciplinarity incorporated in ProTA can be regarded as meta-instrumentalist: Thus ProTA contributes to the self-critique and self-reflexivity of the science/technology system

Chapter 2 Philosophy and plurality

What exactly do—and should—the terms “interdisciplinarity” and its cognate “transdisciplinarity” mean? This chapter exposes different understandings of inter- and transdisciplinarity and sets out a foundation for a critique of innumerable usages of these hype terms. It starts by presenting a plurality of motives behind these notions, followed by criteria characterizing the semantic core of the notions, namely (i) the existence of (disciplinary or academic) boundaries and (ii) the transgression or overcoming of those boundaries. Based on the dialectic consideration of boundaries and with reference to well-established distinctions in the philosophy of science, a plurality of four types is shown: interdisciplinarity with regard to (a) objects, (b) knowledge/theories concepts, (c) methods/practices, and further, (d) problems/issues. Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to the four types. All four types can be illustrated by research programs that are labeled “interdisciplinary”: nanoresearch, complex systems theory/chaos theory, biomimicry/bionics, and technology assessment/sustainability research. In this chapter special emphasis is given to the complex relation between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Arguments favoring a critical-reflexive concept of problem-oriented interdisciplinarity going beyond what is typically associated with transdisciplinarity are presented. This terminological clarification constitutes the very basis for the Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity set forth in this book

Ambivalences at the core of the scientific-technological dynamic: Additional requirements for a conceptual foundation of TA

In diesem Beitrag schlagen wir die Ambivalenzanalyse als ein zentrales Element für eine Theorie der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) vor. Sie ergänzt klassische Eckpfeiler der TA – Folgenorientierung, Beratungsbezug und Wissenschaftlichkeit (Grunwald 2007) – um zentrale Aspekte einer soliden Diagnose der jeweilig aktuellen sozio-technowissenschaftlichen Lage. Wir argumentieren, dass eine Ambivalenzanalyse, in Zusammenschau mit einer geeigneten Technikcharakterisierung, Antworten auf die Herausforderungen durch die zunehmend dynamischen Entwicklungen in den Technowissenschaften bieten kann, die sich zum neuartigen Typus nachmoderner Technik verdichten. Es gilt, eine radikale Frühzeitigkeitsorientierung von TA insbesondere am wissenschaftlich-technischen Kern technowissenschaftlicher Entwicklungen und Visionen wirksam werden zu lassen.In this paper, we propose ambivalence analysis as a central element of the conceptual foundation of technology assessment (TA). Ambivalence analysis complements classical cornerstones of TA – assessing impacts, complying with scientific standards, and providing policy advice (Grunwald 2007) – in order to enable a sound diagnosis of the current situation of the socio-technoscientific advance. We argue that ambivalence analysis, which should include an appropriate technology characterization, can provide answers to the challenges of the increasingly dynamic developments of the technosciences which are condensing into a novel type of technology, the “late-modern technology”. A radical early-stage orientation of TA should focus in particular on the scientific-technological core of technoscientific developments and visions

Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses

Very few genetic variants have been associated with depression and neuroticism, likely because of limitations on sample size in previous studies. Subjective well-being, a phenotype that is genetically correlated with both of these traits, has not yet been studied with genome-wide data. We conducted genome-wide association studies of three phenotypes: subjective well-being (n = 298,420), depressive symptoms (n = 161,460), and neuroticism (n = 170,911). We identify 3 variants associated with subjective well-being, 2 variants associated with depressive symptoms, and 11 variants associated with neuroticism, including 2 inversion polymorphisms. The two loci associated with depressive symptoms replicate in an independent depression sample. Joint analyses that exploit the high genetic correlations between the phenotypes (P = 0.8) strengthen the overall credibility of the findings and allow us to identify additional variants. Across our phenotypes, loci regulating expression in central nervous system and adrenal or pancreas tissues are strongly enriched for association

Polygenic prediction of educational attainment within and between families from genome-wide association analyses in 3 million individuals

We conduct a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of educational attainment (EA) in a sample of ~3 million individuals and identify 3,952 approximately uncorrelated genome-wide-significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A genome-wide polygenic predictor, or polygenic index (PGI), explains 12-16% of EA variance and contributes to risk prediction for ten diseases. Direct effects (i.e., controlling for parental PGIs) explain roughly half the PGI's magnitude of association with EA and other phenotypes. The correlation between mate-pair PGIs is far too large to be consistent with phenotypic assortment alone, implying additional assortment on PGI-associated factors. In an additional GWAS of dominance deviations from the additive model, we identify no genome-wide-significant SNPs, and a separate X-chromosome additive GWAS identifies 57