New article inNature Suggests using science fiction as a tool for predicting public reactions to advanced technologies. Rather than relying on dry surveys, the researchers recommend examining how future stories influence the public imagination – and what can be learned from this to design safer and more useful technologies
The following entry is a bit strange. It is based on the most disappointing and exciting article I have read recently in the scientific literature. I have spared you the (tedious) reading of the original article, and I would love to hear – after you read the entry here – what you think.
From science fiction to science
In the 1990s, the first genetically modified foods hit stores, only to be met with fierce public opposition. People refused to buy, or even bring into their homes, the “unnatural vegetables.” The public backlash stunned the scientists who developed the genetically modified plants, the marketing people in the companies, and even the decision-makers in the corridors of power. No one expected such a strong public reaction to these foods.
Today, thirty years later, many still avoid eating genetically modified food, even though it has already been proven to be Does not harm the environment or human healthIn fact, some plants have been engineered to be even healthier than their original counterparts. But public panic has already taken its toll, and an entire generation has been raised on unfounded fears.
Could decision makers have been better prepared for the launch of the new food? Certainly. But they failed to foresee that such a public reaction would develop. This is one of the most talked-about problems in futures research: Even if we can predict how technology will develop, it is very difficult to understand what use it will be put to, or how society will change as a result of that use.
That is, none other than Mary Shelley, almost two hundred years earlier, in her book "Frankenstein."
In that early science fiction book, Shelley described how Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates new life and ‘plays God’ – a phrase that opponents of genetic engineering have also used. The creature that Dr. Frankenstein creates, of course, turns against him, with all the tragic consequences that could be expected. The book was a great success at the time, and is still sold in stores. Much of its success came precisely because it leaves its readers scared and apprehensive, with a sense of shock at the arrogance of scientists.
If the developers of genetically engineered food had seriously considered the public's reaction to "Frankenstein," they might have realized that the public might also be afraid of genetic engineering and of scientists' attempt to play God. They could have been better prepared for the public hysteria surrounding genetic engineering, and mitigated public fear. If only they had learned from science fiction. Or at least from the way people reacted to it.
This, in short, is the conclusion of three researchers. who recently published an article In one of the most respected journals in the scientific community – Nature. In the article, called “The Scientific Science Fiction Method,” researchers call for the use of science fiction and learn from it how to predict the impact of new technologies on society. Contrary to what you might think, they are not trying to claim that science fiction predicts the future. They propose a different direction for research: to study how science fiction affects our thinking, and to design social experiments that have the same effect.
If we can do this, we can make any new technology safer and more effective. Imagine, for example, what would happen if we understood in advance the polarizing – agitating and radicalizing – effect of social media on the public. Perhaps we would be able to plan and design social media in a safer and more beneficial way. But of course, how could we understand how social media would affect people before it even existed?
Perhaps the new method proposed by the researchers, which they call "science of science fiction," could help. And perhaps it could also help us improve many future technologies so that they are less harmful to their users, and to society as a whole.
Science of science fiction
Entrepreneurs and marketers have been trying for years to understand how potential customers will react to a new and unusual product. To do this, they run surveys in which they describe the product and ask focus groups whether they would want to purchase it. And they discover, time and again, that the results of these surveys cannot be relied upon. People, it turns out, have difficulty imagining how they will behave in future situations, or how they will react to unexpected events.
The idea behind the “science of science fiction” method is that researchers should learn a few lessons from science fiction writers. Instead of asking people about a hypothetical future product, they should get subjects to “feel” it, try it out (in their minds or for real), and consider it in different contexts and situations. This, after all, is the way many science fiction writers do: they imagine a scientific or technological advance, then create a larger picture of the society that developed around that breakthrough. And so, when we read a science fiction story, we are exposed to the same implications of integrating the product into existing society.
Note an important point: This is not an attempt to convince social researchers that they should write science fiction stories and present them to subjects. Stories, after all, can sway readers against (or for) any new technology. The key point is that those researchers should learn from science fiction writers how to design experiments and surveys so that subjects feel more like they have arrived in the described future and are experiencing it here and now. If they do so, their answers will better reflect their future behavior.
Well and good. So surveys need to be designed to be more 'immersive'. That is, to draw the respondents further into the future.
But how do you do it?
Chocolate on Mars
The students at the University of Virginia couldn't believe their good luck, When asked in 2020 to rank research Chocolate cakes. Participants in the experiment stood in front of a bookcase with two chocolate cakes, each of which came with its own backstory. The first was baked according to a recipe created by a human expert in the art of chocolate and cocoa. The second was prepared according to the instructions of an artificial intelligence. At this point, participants were shown the app, where they could clearly see the artificial intelligence's 'name' and its recommendations.
The result? The students thought the AI-made cake was healthier – but less tasty.
The truth, of course, is that the two cakes were exactly the same. The experiment was never intended to test the taste of the cake, but rather to test how humans respond to recommendations made by artificial intelligence. Instead of using dry surveys, the researchers relied on the principles of the “science of science fiction” method and made the subjects feel as if they were in the same imaginary future by incorporating a real app into the study.
In 2007, the Mars Society proved that this principle could be taken to the extreme. The society established a A facility designed to mimic a tiny research spacecraft on its way to Mars. Seven ‘astronauts’ entered the spacecraft at the beginning of the experiment, and had to live there, in a facility each eight meters in diameter, for four long months. Occasionally they went on ‘space’ missions outside the station, but they did so wearing bulky space suits, and carrying rifles to protect themselves from the very real polar bears that roamed the area. They had no television, no radio, and even – worst of all – no cordless phones.
It was hell, but what can't you do for science? It was a "science of science fiction" study at its best, because it allowed the researchers to truly examine how the participants responded to the unique conditions. Indeed, the survey of participants' emotions and behavior throughout the experiment more closely resembled those exposed to real-world conditions of hardship than other, smaller, more comfortable studies.
Of course, you can't expect every social study about the future of technology to include a part where subjects have to live for months with technology that hasn't even been invented yet. Still, many studies can find a common ground between "written surveys" and "sending subjects to Mars." In a new article on "Science of Science Fiction," they recommend using images to illustrate the new technology to subjects, in videos, text snippets, and even virtual reality. They also suggest using the "Wizard of Oz" method, in which humans control robots that talk to the subjects. This way, the subjects feel as if they have moved into a wonderful future where robots can already communicate at an advanced human level.
There are many ways to make experiments more immersive, so that they meet the requirements of "science of science fiction." But not all technologies can be tested well. The authors of the article recommend focusing on studies of technologies that do not have a far-reaching impact on human society, because these are more difficult to simulate in the laboratory. This method would have difficulty, for example, predicting how humans would respond to a technological breakthrough that would bring eternal youth, or to the ability to propel spacecraft at speeds exceeding the speed of light.
And that's it. That's the whole article. And it's very moving, and very disappointing.
The article is disappointing because, despite the grand title the authors chose for it – “The Science Method of Science Fiction” – it doesn’t really talk about science fiction. There are references to science fiction books, yes, but ultimately the method advocates a very simple idea: if you want better answers in surveys about the future, you need to put the subjects in the right atmosphere, in the right context. That’s it. Not much more than that. And to tell the truth, the community of futurists and surveyors was already well aware of this principle.
So why is it still exciting? First of all, because it was published in a respected scientific journal like Nature, which tends to focus only on the big discoveries and groundbreaking developments in science. An article published in such an important journal could reshape the field of futures research. Perhaps from now on, every researcher who does an "enhanced" survey will announce that they are using the new "science of science fiction" method.
But more than that, at least to me, this paper suggests that we are entering new times. There is a reason why the conservative editors of Nature are willing to publish a paper on futures research. In the past three years, the field of artificial intelligence has advanced so rapidly, and at such a rapid rate of change, that everyone understands that we need to try to find a better way to deal with and prepare for change. There is also a broader understanding that there are technologies that can change the world for better or worse—and that it is difficult to get a second chance once they are released. The scientific community needs to study them in advance, to help technologists figure out how to design them in the most beneficial way for users and society.
Here I would like to add one last important question. We must honestly ask ourselves: Who would use the “science of science fiction” method and for what purpose? Wouldn’t this powerful tool be used to calm citizens, rather than adapt technologies for them?
In one frightening scenario, corporations and government agencies could test in advance which narratives work best to reassure the public, how to wrap poor regulation in the packaging of “security,” and how to present mass surveillance as a “personalized service.” Instead of the method being a bridge between scientists and the public, it could become a weapon in the hands of public relations departments.
In the worst case, instead of learning from Frankenstein how to avoid creating technological monsters, we might focus on making scientists more skilled at marketing the next monsters.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
