Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
Engineering Scientific Inquiry and Solar Radiation Management
Research
Ashley Mercer,1
David Keith2
Requirements for an emerging Solar Radiation Management (SRM) research
program include broad, iterative public engagement. The knowledge created
within this proposed program displays unique epistemological characteristics
which bears more likeness to engineering understanding then scientific inquiry.
This epistemological shift changes the knowledge from descriptive to normative
and defines it by anthropocentric goals and purposes. To define these design
parameters, engineers consult and engage their clientele. We suggest that client
involvement in creating the goals and purpose of SRM is essential and due to the
scale and risk of the potential technology, this would include the general public.
Through the framing of SRM knowledge as engineering knowledge, we conclude
that researchers must actively pursue public collaboration to address the
normative nature of the knowledge they create.
Introduction
In a set of hearings held by United States House of Representatives Committee on Science
and Technology,3 geoengineering experts testified that a Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
research program must be undertaken in the United States to understand and characterize the
benefits and risks of this new emerging technology. These experts suggested that this program
would need to engage and respond to public input to be successful. This unique position, reflects
a growing consensus in the geoengineering field that broad public participation in future SRM
research is essential.4 Despite this belief, there has been little effort to justify this important
requirement. This paper examines the nature of the knowledge created during an SRM research
1
Energy and Environmental Systems Group, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary AB,
Canada T2N 1N4 e-mail: amercer@ucalgary.ca
2
Energy and Environmental Systems Group, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary AB,
Canada T2N 1N4 e-mail: keith@ucalgary.ca
3
Three hearings were held in Washington, D.C. from November 2009 to May 2010. The witness list and the
transcript of their statements can be found at http://science.house.gov/publications/.
4
For full treatments of this topic see Keith et al. (2010), Blackstock and Long (2010) and Morgan and Ricke (In
Press).
Page 1 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
program and suggests that it represents a unique epistemological situation. The nature of SRM
research inherently blends questions of science and problems of engineering producing a type of
knowledge that inherently requires societal input. By exploring the epistemologies of science
and engineering, it is possible to suggest an objective justification for large public participation
in SRM research.
Proposed as a technique to regulate rising global temperatures, SRM is a potential
technology that would increase the earth’s global reflectivity by various means, such as the
injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These particles scatter some incoming solar
radiation back into space, thereby lowering the global temperature. It has been characterized as
being cheap, fast and imperfect (Keith et al. 2010). It is a risky technology that will impact the
entire planet through interactions with very complex natural and human systems. Thus if a
research program is to respond to the emerging ideas of the Congressional witnesses, it must be
structured to examine both the socio-technical and governance interface and the physical and
environmental understanding of stratospheric sulfate droplets. This paper will discuss the later
category of questions. Currently, these questions are being framed as pure scientific inquiry,
however, we show, at an epistemological level, SRM research bears more resemblance to
engineering than natural science. The importance of this shift has significant implications for
scientific collaboration with the general public. This is explored in the second half of the paper.
Differentiating Epistemologies
Philosophers have long been attracted to the study of scientific epistemology which attempts
to understand the nature and scope of scientific knowledge. They have debated what is true
knowledge and how it is created. Often wrongly viewed as a wholly intellectual pursuit with
Page 2 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
little practical relevance, understanding the implications of how knowledge is created has
important explanatory power on how research is approached and organized. Until recently, the
philosophy of engineering has attracted less attention. The emerging field of geoengineering
research, specifically SRM, typifies an area where scientific and engineering questions are being
asked simultaneously.
Engineering is seen as the applied branch of the natural sciences. Knowledge created in
basic scientific exploration is thought to flow into models and ultimately engineered artifacts like
bridges, internet routers and nuclear bombs. Scientists are seen as the creator of theories and
engineers access these discoveries to innovate and design for the needs of humans.
The
dominant philosophy of science centers around understanding the meaning of the scientific
method. It is both descriptive and constructive but not normative. Brushing over the nuanced
debates in the literature on the nature and scope of science, one might say that it aims to describe
a natural state or interaction.
Conversely, engineering is an applied, or human-purposed pursuit, focused on the creation
of an artifact that renders a service. Engineers, like scientists, create knowledge, and while that
knowledge may be descriptive, it is also normative. Described by Thomas Tredgold, in a draft of
the Charter of the British Engineer in 1828, “engineering is the art of directing the great sources
of power in nature for the use and convenience of man” (cited from Mitcham 1998). To define
use and convenience, an engineer must define the purpose of the artifact and goals for its
operation. Both are purely human constructs based on the end-users needs and wants. Thus,
engineers must engage the complicated, multifaceted and value-laden area of human input.
Known in engineering as designing, this type of knowledge is inherently purposeful. It is
restricted by scientific limits like thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, as well as structured
Page 3 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
by variables and conditions that humans place on it, like project specifications, intended purpose,
and safety regulation.
Simon (1969) describes the type of knowledge created in engineering pursuits as the
“science of the artificial.” It is concerned with how something “ought to be” rather than “how
something is.” The former is normative knowledge that defines the optimal way to act in order
to achieve a particular goal. Unlike the descriptive understandings, normative knowledge can
only be understood in relationship to established goals. Thus, to describe “what is,” is distinctly
different from stating “what ought to be.” Hume (1739) observes that no matter how vast an
understanding of how things are, it cannot define how something ought to be. This “is/ought
problem” would suggest a researcher cannot simultaneously describe a natural state and deduce a
correct
design
parameter,
because
descriptive
knowledge
only
informs
normative
understandings, not derives it. The essence of engineering is to start with the needs of the user,
that is with the "ought," and then to apply scientific knowledge, the "is", to design a product.
Their goal is not to define how something “ought to be” from scientific knowledge, but rather to
take human desires is the essential input. Engineering is meaningless without a client. It is a twoway street that links client with nature.
Blending Scientific and Engineering Epistemologies
The increasing complexity of the socio-technical system is allowing for the blending of
science and engineering. It is precisely these questions that attempt to simultaneously ask “what
is” and “what ought to be” that creates a unique epistemological question. In essence, these
types of questions embed a scientific question in an engineering problem. Research into SRM
takes on this unique form. For example, questions of atmospheric interactions using SRM
Page 4 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
particles, still describe nature, but primarily become part of the know-how to design the
technology. By way of demonstration, envision an experiment where an airplane tests the shortterm physical behaviour of small sulfate droplets in the stratosphere. Now envision two different
purposes for this experiment: 1) to better understand the behaviour of droplets in the
stratosphere; or 2) to better understand the behaviour of droplets in the stratosphere to describe a
future SRM technology. Both experiments will produce the same scientific discoveries, but the
former is a scientific question, while the later is a scientific question constructed with an
engineering goal. The observations may be the same, but the nature of the knowledge produced
is different. There has been an epistemological shift from describing nature to describing
parameters for design.
Scientific Inquiry pursuing Engineering Goals
SRM is not the only project in modern history to create an epistemological shift. In fact, it is
becoming increasingly the norm. The most well-known research program combining scientific
inquiry with the pursuit of engineering goals, is the creation of the atomic bomb. Los Alamos
National Lab served as a home for many researchers working on basic questions of science but
all directed towards an engineered product defined by the US military. More recently, nanoscale
science has emerged under the engineering quest of creating nanotechnology. In each of these
research programs, basic science was being conducted for, as opposed to accessed by, an
engineering project. It squarely places scientific inquiry in an engineering context, thereby
placing objective rationality in value-laden goal-oriented work.
Page 5 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
Clients for Geoengineering
Working in an engineering program that creates goal-oriented knowledge changes the
dominant paradigm. At an epistemological level, SRM research creates knowledge that is
normative, not descriptive. Indeed, this research is more aptly described as an engineering
project. Geo-engineering is thus an apt name. This important shift in the characterization of
produced knowledge suggests that and SRM research program must be designed to reflect the
type of knowledge it is creating and abide by its epistemological requirements. The most
important of which is the role of client input.
Purpose is a human defined concept that is developed through input and iteration by clients
that identify the use, implementation and direction of technology. Through a host of techniques,
engineers seek and use input to develop an artifact. The clients, or relevant actors, are easy to
identify in small, simple systems, but as the complexity and impact increases, so too does the list
and importance of clients, often to include the general public. When considering a technology
like SRM, which is both global and risky in nature, it is conceivable that there is a vast and
diverse client list that engineers must consider and engage when contemplating the design and
implementing a project. Identifying the specifics of who and how people should be involved in
an SRM research project, is a challenging undertaking for future research, however the need for
client involvement in defining engineering goals is central to designing a successful SRM
research and engineering program.
Engineers traditionally limit client input to defining the boundaries and goals of the design.
This input cannot change scientific parameters, such as gravity or thermodynamics. This is a
limited scope for potential participation, but nevertheless, may have large impacts on potential
methods and experiment implementation. If we return to the example of the airplane experiment,
Page 6 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
client input has no impact on the requirements for establishing scientifically rigorous data, but
rather the type of information that is required and more broadly the goals of research.
Historically, in traditional scientific pursuits, scientists have had the ability to define the goals,
scope and method of experimentation by themselves, using norms and background from their
discipline.
Indeed, the epistemological shift means scientific researchers find themselves,
uncomfortably, in the role of engineers faced with defining a purpose for a technology, and in
SRM’s case, with global implications.
Removing the Burden
The insistence for public participation by experts is unusual. It is reasonable to expect that
since they are the best informed, they would want to proceed unhindered. This odd request may
lead to the conclusion that experts are attempting to placate public opposition, so they can
proceed with their research or that public participation in the research is a way to convince the
general public to accept SRM. Based on historical conflicts between experts and the public
about controversial technologies like nuclear power, recombinant DNA and genetically modified
organisms, these are reasonable suppositions. However, in each of these conflicts, scientists did
not recognize they were operating as engineers and disregarded or recognized too late the
essential nature of client input. Public collaboration needs to be a central part of SRM research
because it is an inconceivably large burden to bear to suggest that researchers alone define the
engineering parameters for SRM.
The proposed SRM research program has been described in the Congressional testimony as:
interdisciplinary (Barrett 2010), international (Caldeira 2009; Long 2010), interagency (Long
2010), diverse (Keith 2010) and collaborative (Long 2010).
Page 7 of 10
It would be characterized by
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
“widely-shared knowledge” (Keith 2010) accessible and responsive to the broader scientific
community and the general public. It would engage a broad public body in defining the purpose
of a future SRM technology because at the very essence of the research program is a deeply
normative question “what is humanity’s appropriate place on the planet.” SRM’s ultimate
purpose and design, or lack thereof, will define this normative belief. Imagine an engineering
firm, and a client comes and says, “I want to stop global warming.” The naïve engineer in the
firm gets right down to work and starts creating a machine to provide a solution.
Upon
reflection, the wiser engineer in the firm goes back to the client and says, “Why do you want to
stop global warming? Is the objective to create more human utility or do you want to keep more
of the earth the way it was before we started messing with it? Indeed, these are different
objectives and I don't know how to proceed with the design unless I know which one you care
about the most.” An SRM research program must reflect the ethos of the wiser-engineer and
truly engage with this deeply normative question. The resulting client/wise-engineer dialogue is
the only way to engage with this essential design parameter. If researchers ignore the need for
client collaboration and operate as if they are doing pure science, they are making a strongly
normative commitment to a particular vision of humanity’s role on the planet.
Professional engineers are comfortable with using normative information, however scientists
are not. As we move to explore SRM, we must recognize that the fundamental shift from
scientific to engineering understanding requires client inputs. If this is ignored, SRM researchers
could alienate their clientele, which leads to a distrust and close-mindedness to the research. It is
not an engineer’s place to force a certain vision of a technology on the client, but rather reflect an
in-depth understanding of clients’ goal through realistic parameters for potential operation. As
Page 8 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
such, SRM researchers must actively seek out input on SRM’s potential design parameters and
avoid over-stepping the limitations of their role.
Conclusion
SRM is a global technology with global risks and benefits. Due to the shift in
epistemologies, each piece of knowledge created under an SRM research goal, even if it looks
like simple description of a phenomenon, creates design parameters. The congressional witness
intuitively recognized the different nature of SRM knowledge.
The need for open and
transparent research is ultimately justified by the understanding that SRM researchers are not
asking purely scientific questions at all, they are undertaking a complex and global engineering
question that requires broad client input. Researchers must adapt their inquiry to include input
and collaboration into the normative aspects of their questions.
References
Barrett, S. (2010). “Geoengineering's Governance: Written Statement.” United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
Caldeira, K. (2009). “Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate
Intervention.” United States House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, Washington, D.C.
Hume, D. (1739). “Book III: Of Morals.” A Treatise of Human Nature, Dover Philosophical
Classics: 334-335.
Keith, D. (2010). “Learning to Manage Sunlight: Research Needs for Solar Radiation
Management.” United States House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, Washington, D.C.
Keith, D., E. Parson and G. Morgan (2010). "Research on global sunblock needed now." Nature
463(28): 426-427.
Long, J. (2010). “Testimony to the House Science Committee: Geoengineering III Hearing.”
United States House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
Mitchum, C. (1998). "The importance of philosophy to engineering." Teorema 17(3): 27-47.
Morgan, G. and K. Ricke (In Press). Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management:
The need for research and an approach to its governance. International Risk Governance
Council. Geneva.
Page 9 of 10
Mercer and Keith
Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Workshop
Missoula, Montana
Simon, H. (1969). “Understanding the Natural and the Artifical Worlds.” The Sciences of the
Artificial. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Page 10 of 10