‘Direct demo­cracy isn’t an obsta­cle: it’s a strength’

The cumber­some term ‘tech­no­logy assess­ment’ refers to a field of rese­arch that deals with trends in new tech­no­lo­gies and their impact on society. The idea spread from the USA to Europe from the 1970s onwards. In Switz­er­land, too, parlia­ment reco­g­nised the need for ongo­ing moni­to­ring so it could keep pace with tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ments. In 1992, it commis­sio­ned the Swiss Science Coun­cil to set up a natio­nal system for tech­no­logy assess­ment (TA). TA-SWISS has been a non-profit foun­da­tion and part of the Swiss Acade­mies of Arts and Scien­ces as a centre of excel­lence since 2016. On behalf of parlia­ment, it moni­tors and analy­ses the oppor­tu­ni­ties and risks presen­ted by new tech­no­lo­gies – and always does so on an inter­di­sci­pli­nary basis: ‘When we examine the tech­ni­cal condi­ti­ons, we always take social, poli­ti­cal, econo­mic, envi­ron­men­tal, ethi­cal and legal aspects into account,’ explains Elisa­beth Ehren­sper­ger, mana­ging direc­tor of TA-SWISS. ‘This helps us ensure that no ques­ti­ons or perspec­ti­ves fall by the wayside.’ To this end, TA-SWISS also uses various parti­ci­pa­tion proce­du­res such as stake­hol­der work­shops, round tables and focus group discus­sions with citizens.

The foun­da­tion acts independently

Although the chari­ta­ble foun­da­tion acts on behalf of parlia­ment and is finan­ced enti­rely by public funds, Ehren­sper­ger empha­si­ses that it is inde­pen­dent: ‘We have free rein, both in terms of setting our agenda and conduc­ting our studies.’ It isn’t parlia­ment or rese­ar­chers that deter­mine which topics and projects are to be pursued, but rather the TA-SWISS stee­ring commit­tee. To preserve its inde­pen­dence, the foun­da­tion takes a syste­ma­tic approach: each study is put out to tender publicly and conduc­ted with the help of a chan­ging cast of experts and part­ner orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. TA-SWISS also refrains from making speci­fic recom­men­da­ti­ons to poli­ti­ci­ans. ‘We high­light possi­ble cour­ses of action; we don’t engage in poli­ti­cal acti­vism,’ explains Ehren­sper­ger. ‘Our job is to high­light the oppor­tu­ni­ties and risks posed by new tech­no­lo­gies for all inte­rest groups, so that they can form their own opini­ons.’ One of TA-SWISS’s key tasks, ther­e­fore, is public rela­ti­ons: all of a study’s findings are presen­ted to the public at a media confe­rence and made available in an easy-to-under­stand version: ‘You don’t have to be an expert to under­stand our studies,’ assu­res the mana­ging director.

Bene­fits versus sovereignty

TA-SWISS focu­ses on three areas:  biotech­no­logy and medi­cine, digi­ta­li­sa­tion and society, and energy and the envi­ron­ment. Digi­ta­li­sa­tion is the area in which most rese­arch is curr­ently taking place and perme­a­tes all other areas. For exam­ple, the foun­da­tion recently published a study on digi­tal curren­cies. This topic is of great importance to the Swiss economy but, accor­ding to Ehren­sper­ger, has met with little public inte­rest so far – despite the fact that the pending cash initia­tive or the EU’s plans for a digi­tal euro are certainly hot topics. Amongst other aspects, the study sheds light on an area of tension that always arises when digi­ta­li­sa­tion is mentio­ned: weig­hing up the bene­fits that tech­no­logy brings for society and the state against the asso­cia­ted risks to state sove­reig­nty and the inte­grity of the indi­vi­dual. On the one hand, the ability for speci­fic payments to be programmed and made auto­ma­ti­cally with digi­tal francs is highly effi­ci­ent. On the other hand, these new forms of digi­tal money also pose the risk of surveil­lance and data misuse – for exam­ple, if programmed money is linked to iden­tity veri­fi­ca­tion. The study ther­e­fore concludes that new digi­tal curren­cies in Switz­er­land should comple­ment, but not replace, cash. As a matter of prin­ci­ple, an offline solu­tion must always be offe­red for services where the state has a mono­poly, Ehren­sper­ger belie­ves: ‘It must still be possi­ble to buy a train ticket or fill out a tax return without using a smart­phone and without being disad­van­ta­ged by this.’ Howe­ver, this option is alre­ady under considera­ble pressure.

Use room for manoeuvre

The notion that states can main­tain complete inde­pen­dence with regard to their digi­tal sove­reig­nty is illu­sory, given the domi­nance of large tech compa­nies and the global context, says TA-SWISS’s mana­ging direc­tor. But much would be gained by stri­ving for a degree of diver­si­fi­ca­tion in public infra­struc­ture and not putting all our eggs into one basket – as is self-evident with finan­cial invest­ments. ‘We must not capi­tu­late to the rapid deve­lo­p­ment of new tech­no­lo­gies, which curr­ently seem to be swee­ping over us like a tidal wave. Instead, we should reflect on the room for mano­eu­vre we have under the rule of law.’ To do this, howe­ver, society needs to nego­tiate how it wants to use the new tech­no­lo­gies – and do so via a demo­cra­tic decis­ion-making process. In view of the current crises, people have high hopes of rapid tech­no­lo­gi­cal solu­ti­ons, says Ehren­sper­ger: ‘That doesn’t seem to leave any time for demo­cra­tic proces­ses.’ Howe­ver, decis­i­ons made colla­bo­ra­tively enjoy long-term accep­tance among the popu­la­tion: ‘Direct demo­cracy isn’t an obsta­cle: it’s a strength.’ And along­side all the risks – such as fake news and pola­ri­sa­tion – that digi­ta­li­sa­tion entails for demo­cracy, it also opens up new oppor­tu­ni­ties for forming gene­ral opinion. After all, AI and social media can also be used to reach people who’ve alre­ady turned their back on politics.