Hiroshi Ishiguro: Android science and 'upstream engagement'

This article discusses Hiroshi Ishiguro, a Japanese celebrity roboticist internationally acclaimed for his creation of androids. While his anthropomorphic machines are intended as models for future human-like robots, participating in work and domestic contexts, Ishiguro also regards them as experimental tools for investigations into questions of human identity. Beyond engineering challenges, he is not afraid to ask philosophical questions, such as 'what is the human?' Ishiguro has even had facial plastic surgery to match the appearance of his robot double, Geminoid HI-1. He has been described as the bad boy of Japanese robotics, an eccentric genius who is recognized as such in Japan, and overseas. While Ishiguro conducts scientific experiments, he has also deployed his anthropomorphic robots in popular entertainment contexts such as film, television, theatre and in museum exhibitions. Although Ishiguro's androids have almost always been included in mainstream western journalism's coverage concerning the development of next-generation robots in Japan, his anthropomorphic machines are often shown along with a photo of Ishiguro in his trademark black clothing, and described as 'freaky' and 'creepy'. I argue that Ishiguro's presentation feeds the western fascination with Japanese robot technology. This article examines the relationship between Ishiguro's larger-than-life public persona and his philosophy concerning his work as a kind of storytelling and upstream engagement in the context of robotic science.

RRI: How to ‘mainstream’ the ‘upstream’ engagement

There are strong arguments for and against having either a dedicated funding scheme for science communication in the next European Framework Programme, or mainstreaming upstream engagement across all disciplines. How could both approaches be combined? The success of either will depend on its operationalisation.

Outreaching, Outsourcing, and Disembedding

The role of the individual scientist as a socialization agent (i.e., an actor who contributes to embedding technology into society) is increasingly emphasized in science policy. This article analyzes offshore wind scientists’ narratives about science–technology–society relations and their role in them. It particularly focuses on the nuanced and detailed reasons that scientists give for their level of engagement with society. The analysis is based on semistructured individual and focus group interviews with thirty-five scientists. It finds a diversity of narratives related to the questions of whether socialization of technology is needed and which approaches to socialization scientists should pursue. The six narratives identified are (1) upstream engagement, (2) design against resistance, (3) the outreaching scientist, (4) the difficulty of outreach, (5) the outsourcing scientist, and (6) disembedded development of technology. Despite the importance attributed to scientists for the socialization of science and technology, most interviewed scientists did not embrace their role as socialization agent. Based on the scientists’ narratives, this article argues that we should rethink both who should be responsible for socialization and what should be the object of sciences’ engagement with society.

Cross-National Comparative Communication and Deliberation About the Risks of Nanotechnologies

This chapter presents some of the methodological and philosophical challenges faced when conducting public engagement with emerging technologies. The intellectual origins and challenges of conducting upstream public engagement for science communication are discussed, illustrated through the case of nanotechnologies. A series of cross-national workshops held simultaneously in the United States and the UK are described. Findings included that benefits continued to be weighted more heavily than risks in participants’ perceptions of nanotechnologies, as well as did the type of application; that there were more US–UK cross-cultural similarities than differences in the data; the differences that did emerge were both subtle and contextual; and that discourses about social concerns rather than physical risk issues were more salient for participants in both countries. Four methodological challenges for upstream engagement are outlined. We argue that we must also place diverse publics and other concerned stakeholders at the heart of processes of responsible innovation

Public Engagement and Nanotechnology in Australia

Upstream engagement is commonly regarded as necessary for the smooth implementation of new technologies, particularly when there is an impact on health. Is the healthcare context in Australia geared toward such public engagement? There are established engagement practices for issues of healthcare resourcing, for example; however, the situation becomes more complex with the introduction of a new technology such as nanomedicine.