Science and technology applications are not value neutral. The intentions, purposes, and actions that shape the direction, advances, and policies for science and technology use, research, and development embody the perspectives; purposes; prejudices; particular objectives; and cultural, economical, ethical, moral, spiritual, and political frameworks of different social groups and society at large.

This is true for any given society in which these human activities take place.
Until now inventions have been slow enough to allow society to integrate new science and technology realities into their social fabric and social contract. The speed of these cycles has been steadily increasing, however, allowing less time to evaluate how new science and technology products affect social cohesion and the social contract, and how negative impacts can be mitigated and positive impacts enhanced.

There is less time now for a social structure to differentiate between the positive and the negative facets of science and technology research, development and products. The negative impacts will became more pronounced with an increase in speed of the innovation cycle, if this discourse itself is not radically changed.
 
Émile Durkheim coined the concept of social cohesion at the end of the nineteenth century. As of today there is no single definition of social cohesion (UK Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003; Jeannotte, 2001; Circlenetwork.org, 2001; Statistics New Zealand, Sustainable Development, 2006; Eurpean New Towns Platform) and it is still debated whether socialcohesion is a cause or a consequence of other aspects of social, economic and political life. (Beauvais and Jenson, 2002).

Some define social cohesion in very general terms to mean: All that which brings people together (European New Towns Platform). In Canada the following description is in use: “Social cohesion is the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians.” (Jeannotte and Sharon, 2001). Social cohesion is not simply a homogenous non-diverse society.

Four characteristics of social cohesion are identified in the literature. (Jenson and Jane, 2002). First, it is a process rather than an end state. Second, and as a result, it involves a definition of who is “in” and who is not, to to whom members of society owe solidarity, and to whom they do not. Third, it is considered to require and be based upon shared values. Fourth, it tends to devote very little attention to the conflicts inherent in any pluralist society, and the mechanisms for their resolution. It pays insufficient attention to the strengths and weaknesses of institutions for conflict resolution -- particularly democratic ones. (Jenson and Jane, 2002).

There are five dimensions to the concept (Jenson and Jane, 2002):

• Belonging – isolation: that means shared values, identity, feelings of commitment;
• Inclusion – exclusion: concerns equal opportunities of access;
• Participation – non-involvement;
• Recognition – rejection: that addresses the issue of respecting and toleratingdifferences in a pluralistic society;
• Legitimacy – illegitimacy: with respect to institutions.

Beauvais and Jenson (2002) combine an interest in social cohesion with social capital and underline the interactive elements of: common values and a civic culture; social order and social control; social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities; social networks and social capital; and territorial belonging and identity.

The European Union has characterised its approach to social cohesion as being consistent with "the European model of society," founded on a notion of solidarity that is embodied in universal systems of social protection, regulation to correct market failure and systems of dialogue (Jeanotte, 2000).

The Council of Europe’s list of defining characteristics includes: shared loyalties and solidarity; strength of social relations and shared values; feelings of a common identity and a sense of belonging to the same community; trust among members; and reduction of disparities, inequalities and social exclusion. (Spoonley, Peace and Butcher, 2005).

The Council for Europe looked at 600 possible indicators. South Korea  looks at 492 social indicators in 13 areas. What are the needs of the people? Attempts to explain them include Maslow's hierarchy of needs (illustrated below) (Huitt, 2004; Giussani, 2006; Futuramb, 2006; Digitalcrusader, 2006; and Hosking, 2004).

Nevis (1983) constructed a Chinese hierarchy of needs: Self-Actualization; Safety; Physiology; and Belonging.

The Canadian index of wellbeing (CIW) is a measure of the quality of life of all Canadians, “of people’s life chances -- the probabilities of good or bad things happening to them as they go through their lives.” It will measure wellbeing in seven areas.

The Living Standards domain will measure incomes and jobs; the gap between rich and poor; food and livelihood security; and affordable housing. The Healthy Populations domain will assess the health status and health outcomes of different groups of Canadians, as well as risk factors and conditions that affect health and disease. The Community Vitality domain will assess social cohesion, personal security and safety, and people’s sense of social and cultural belonging. Other domains will measure the quality of the environment, the educational attainment of the population, and the amount of free time people can devote to social, family and cultural pursuits. Finally, the CIW will measure people’s civic engagement, and how responsive governing bodies are to citizens’ needs and views.

My columns show that NBICS impacts nearly all of the indicators used to measure social cohesion and social wellbeing. I have outlined elsewhere (2005) the numerous challenges the CIW has to overcome namely:

• Challenge 1: The transhumanist scenario. How is the CIW is influenced by the transhumanization of well-being.
• Challenge 2: How CIW takes marginalized groups into account.
• Challenge 3: How the domains are related, and how they are weighed against each other.
• Challenge 4: How the health domain is linked with the others, and how the other domains impact healthcare delivery.
• Challenge 5: How NBICS development and use is prioritized, and with respect to what needs.
• Challenge 6: The limitation of health to mean medical health excluding social well being without an existing infrastructure which deals with social well-being in general.

These challenges are intrinsic to any well-being index, and the indicators used to measure social cohesion and social well-being.

The Choice is Yours

What needs will we try to address with NBICS?  “The heads of states and governments of EU Member States decided in Lisbon in March 2000 on a long term strategy to make the European Union by 2010 "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."

What facets of social cohesion will be addressed? All, or some more than others? Is there a hierarchical list of actions that need to be taken ? Are there competing interests in NBICS, and in the different facets of social cohesion?

Time is needed to resolve these questions. The invention cycle allows less and less time from the emergence of a technology to its social consequences. It is increasingly important that foresight exercises be performed for NBICS, so we can have a plan ready and act faster to reduce the negative impacts on social structures -- including social cohesion. Our objective should be to achieve the highest possible positive outcomes.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Diasbility, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2007. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.