Technology must play a greater role in public debate

Anders Bjarklev in Frederiksborg Amts Avis: Action must be taken on many fronts to stimulate the debate on technology. We can develop very good technological solutions, but if people don’t trust and accept them, they won’t have a positive impact on society.

Technology affects almost all aspects of our lives. Public records follow us from cradle to grave. New technologies in the health and social service sectors, among others, are emerging and paving the way for major changes in society. We’ve even put much of our communication with each other in the hands of the tech giants. And when it comes to addressing urgent challenges such as the pandemic and the climate crisis, we’re entirely dependent on innovative technological solutions.

Every minute a new technology is invented that we embrace and use, but often without much thought about the consequences for the individual and society. We’re not nearly good enough at talking about these things. For example, when was the last time the Danish Parliament debated the ethics of artificial intelligence and data? There should be far more democratic conversation about digital technologies, both in the media and among politicians.

Public debate and technology advisors

Those of us involved in technological development and research must shoulder some of the blame. We have not been good enough at talking about it in an exciting way. Many engineers are so involved in solving technological challenges that they forget to engage in public debate. They’re busy figuring out how to send a signal, build a house, or develop a vaccine. But we must also take responsibility for increasing the general knowledge of technology in society.

The technology debate should also be higher on the parliamentary agenda. For more than 50 years, we have had councils of economic advisors following the country’s economic development and highlighting the long-term prospects for development. Now I think it’s high time to set up a similar council of technology advisors.

And why not go further and set up an actual Ministry of Technology, preferably one directly linked to the Prime Minister’s Office? I believe that such an important issue should be addressed at the highest levels. In Singapore, the Prime Minister is also the Minister of Technology. And the government’s senior ministers spend a week a year talking to universities. We could easily do the same in this country.

Action must be taken on many fronts to stimulate the debate on technology. We can develop very good technological solutions, but if people don’t trust and accept them, they won’t have a positive impact on society. People must be able to trust that technology is used for their benefit and not just for enriching tech giants or enabling the authorities to monitor us.

Almost all knowledge and technology can be misused. During my time as a researcher, I helped develop the optical fibre technology that today transmits information through the internet at the speed of light. If I had been asked twenty years ago what the main social benefit of this technology would be, I would have said that the ability to disseminate knowledge quickly is the best way to prevent manipulation and lies. Unfortunately, that didn’t turn out to be true. Nevertheless, most of us wouldn’t wish to do without this technology.

We must be open to technological opportunities, while remaining critical and ensuring that there is a democratic conversation about them at all times. And that conversation must take place on an informed basis. Technology isn’t inferior: it’s what creates our common future. That is why the technology debate needs to be higher on society’s agenda.