From%TAto%RRI:%What’s%new%in%preparing%for%the% … · 2015. 3. 22. ·...

From TA to RRI: What’s new in preparing for the implica:ons of new technologies?

Philip Shapira

Workshop on Science, Technology and Innova8on Systems: Dynamics, Governance and Public Policy

University of Campinas, Brazil March 4, 2015

1 Email: [email protected] | TwiPer: @philipshapira

From TA to RRI: What’s new in preparing for the implica:ons of new technologies?

1.   New technologies: Why prepare?

2.   An:cipa:on & Governance: From assessment to responsibility

3.   Challenges and Opportuni:es: Design and opera8onaliza8on of responsible research and innova8on

2

New technologies: Why prepare? •  Ra:onales for ac:on include:

– Economic: address market failures to investment –  Ins:tu:onal: address public failures, e.g. making use of science and technology

– Ethics and regula:on: morality, law, standards – Risk: mi8gate or avoid poten8ally harmful effects – Distribu:on: equity, par8cipa8on – Construc:ve design: bePer meet user needs – Challenges: societal and global grand challenges

3

From TA to RRI: What’s new in preparing for the implica8ons of new technologies?

1

Prepare: Late Middle English: from French préparer or La8n praeparare, from prae “before” + parare “make ready” (Oxford Engl. Dic8onary)

Why focus on new and emerging technologies?

A new or emerging technology offers: •  Major new capabili:es or func:ons when compared with conven8onal

(current) technology. –  Current examples include: nanotechnology, synthe8c biology, digital

manufacturing, advanced neuroscience, geo-‐engineering.

•  Claims of revolu8onary or transforma:ve economic and societal impacts, ocen targeted to societal grand challenges. –  Likely to raise significant concerns about ethics, environmental health and

safety, economic displacement, equity, and other societal impacts.

•  Fresh opportuni:es for prepara:on and shaping at the “fuzzy front end” when new technologies are s8ll under development and experimenta8on –  New approaches possible – may be in unregulated voids –  Yet also s8ll challenged by ins8tu8onal path dependencies and incumbent

technologies and stakeholders

4

Time horizons: Waves & cycles of technological innova8on

5

Long term technology and growth: Kondra8ev Cycles (Source: MakingItMagazine.net)

Short term profit and loss: “Valley of Death” (Source: Outlier Magazine)

See also: Schumpeter “Crea8ve destruc8on” (medium-‐term, drivers of change view)

The promise and reali8es of emerging technologies Processes of emergence

6

Gartner “Hype” Cycle

2013 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle Source: Gartner, August 2013

See also: “Double Boom” Schmoch, 2007

Technology Emergence Societal Challenges

•  The Grey Goo / GMF problem –  Avoid nega8ve results –  Responsibility and a precau8onary approach

•  The targe8ng problem – What are the goals? (esp. of public investment in science & tech)

–  Society as the fron8er: Equity, quality of life •  The process problem

– Who decides? Can decision-‐making be inclusive? –  Can decision-‐making be reflec8ve and an8cipatory?

2006-05-03 23:10:00Scientist warns of nanotechnology dangersLONDON, May 3 (UPI) -- A British scientist is warning that hundreds of...

An8cipa8on and governance: From assessment to responsibility


2

S&T policy approaches to prepare for new technologies, include: •  Forecas8ng •  Foresight •  Road mapping •  Scenarios •  Technology

assessment •  Strategic intelligence •  An8cipatory

governance

An:cipa:on: developing understandings of what might happen, e.g. technology pathways, implica8ons

Three examples:

Governance:: what to do, who should be involved, and what can be done.

Technology Assessment

Real-‐Time Technology Assessment

Responsible Research and Innova:on

Congressional Office of Technology Assessment

1986-‐1988 2005-‐2015 2015-‐2019

Responsible Research & Innova:on (RRI)

Real-‐Time Technology Assessment (RTTA)

Technology Assessment (TA)

Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-‐ASU)

SYNBIOCHEM: Centre for Synthe:c Biology of Fine and Speciality

Chemicals (Manchester)

Example 1: Technology Assessment (TA)

Concept: TA = knowledge development and dissemina:on to inves8gate and consider the full range of impacts and consequences of technological applica8ons.

Core principles: •  Science and technology developments have implica8ons – economic, societal,

ethical, environmental, health, security •  Implica8ons not always obvious at an early stage yet, once deployed nega8ve

implica8ons can be difficult and costly to remedy •  Early assessment and examina8on of op8ons and their implica8ons can inform

technological decision-‐making and investment •  Not an8-‐technological: addresses opportuni8es and barriers to desirable

technological adop8on, as well as highligh8ng poten8al issues, risks •  Technology assessment tools include (but not limited to): expert advice,

scenarios, foresight, undertaken in an interdisciplinary context

Emergence: Emerges in US (and Europe) in mid-‐1960s – rising concern about modern technologies and impacts – pollu8on, supersonic transport, agricultural pes8cides, natural resource exploita8on, nuclear power

Key Probes

q  Drivers -‐ What is the technology? •  Who is developing it, how, and at what pace?

q  Applica:ons: What are the poten:al applica:ons? •  Can the technology scale up and be economic and

sustainable in produc8on and use (added value compared with incumbents or compe8ng new technologies?)

•  Who will be the likely users? Where is the market, and what size?

q  Adop:on: Can and Should it be Deployed? •  What are the opportuni8es and barriers to technological

adop8on, also poten8al issues, risks? 11


OTA – Quick Recap Legisla:ve development

–  “Technology assessment” introduced in Congress 1965 -‐ policymakers could not judge merits of technological programs

–  Na8onal Academies & Congressional studies; NSF TA program –  OTA legisla8on developed in 1972, founded 1973 (PL 92-‐484)

US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) l  Opens in 1974, expert staff (health, environment, IT, etc) l  Provided commiPees with assessments of complex technologies –

with op,ons (pro & con) l  12 member bi-‐par8san TA Board l  c. 750 studies and reports over 23 years, many topics; c. 140 staff,

$20m budget

OTA Closed (“De-‐funded”) l  1995 (Republican-‐controlled Congress)


Commentary • “My job is not to resolve the debate but to enhance and inform it” (Nancy Lubin, OTA project director) • Congress has too much informa8on not too liPle – OTA was really good at being able to ”sic through that and figure out what is and isn’t a problem” (Bruce Bimber, UCSB) • OTA is a “defense against the dumb” (Rep George Brown, 1965)

Sources: Peter Blair, Congress's Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972-1995), 2013; Bruce Bimber, The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment, 1996; T. Murphy, T Raja, You Can Also Blame Newt Gingritch for the Obama Care Website Screwup, Mother Jones, December 6, 2013. L. Kelly, Congress’ Wicked Problem: Seeking Knowledge Inside the Information Tsunami, New America Foundation, 2013; J Sadowski, Atlantic Monthly, Oct 26, 2012

Examples of OTA insight and foresight �  1975 study -‐ new tanker designs needed (decade before Exxon-‐

Valdiz spill in 1989) �  1982 study an8cipates that email will obsolete the post service �  1985 assessment of mul8-‐billion dollar Strategic Defense Ini8a8ve

(Star Wars) finds it would not work �  1993 study emphasizes dangers of fer8lizer bombs (c.f. Oklahoma

City bombing in 1995) �  1994 assessment of Social Security computer upgrades yields

$368m savings

US Office of Technology Assessment, 1974-‐1995

TA in USA since 1995

q Range of views on effec8veness of OTA –  Pro: Much-‐needed body of independent scien8fic and

technological advice for Congress and country –  Con: Inefficient, duplica8ve, and in some cases biased

q Since 1995 –  Other organiza8ons involved in TA (or “quasi-‐TA”), including

Na8onal Academy, non-‐profits (RAND, Cri8cal Technologies Ins8tute), GAO, other expert TA consultancies)

q Efforts to re-‐establish OTA or an OTA-‐like capability

–  Legisla8ve proposals (beginning 2002, Rush Holt, OTA Re-‐establishment) and other proposals for TA services or centers aiding Congress

–  G. Morgan, J Peha, Science & Technology Advice for Congress; and others

–  Argument: Congressional TA capability is essen8al


Meanwhile …8mes change

q Development of innova:on systems approaches q Advances in ICT & knowledge systems q New TA concepts

–  Strategic Intelligence (Kuhlmann, Smits) •  Mul8ple instruments: Technology Forecas8ng, Technology Foresight, Technology Assessment, Evalua8on, and Road Mapping

–  Par:cipatory TA; Technology Consensus Conferences (DK) •  Broaden par8cipa8on & engagement in TA decision-‐making

–  Construc:ve TA (NL); Real-‐Time TA (Guston, Sarewitz); An:cipatory Governance (Guston); Midstream Modula:on (Fisher)

•  Use TA, other methods to modify / modulate technology development

Center for Nanotechnology and Society (CNS-ASU) [NSF 2005-2015]

CNS-‐ASU involves the ac8vi8es of more than 80 individuals at 3 major collabora8ng ins8tu8ons, as well as other collaborators, partners, and consultants

•  Arizona State University

•  University of Wisconsin-Madison

•  Georgia Tech

MISSION •  Research the societal implica8ons of

nanotechnologies

•  Train a community of scholars with new insight into the societal dimensions of nanoscale science & engineering (NSE)

•  Engage the public, policy makers, business leaders, and NSE researchers in dialogues about the goals and implica8ons of NSE

•  Partner with NSE laboratories to introduce greater reflexiveness in the R&D process

Example 2: Real-‐Time Technology Assessment (RTTA)

The U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (PL 108-‐153)

Four key objec:ves: •  Framework for integrated and

interdisciplinary approach to nano R&D

•  Encourages applica8ons of nano for produc8vity, industrial compe88veness

•  Provides for nano educa8on and training

•  Requires ethical, legal, environmental, and other societal concerns to be addressed

Sec 2(b)(10): ¡  Establishes societal implica8ons

research program ¡  Requires nano research centers

(NSECs) to address societal implica8ons

¡  Integrates societal concerns with nano R&D

¡  Ensure advances in nanotech lead to quality of life improvements for all

¡  Provides for public input

An:cipatory Governance •  a broad-‐based capacity extended

through society that can act on a variety of inputs to manage emerging knowledge-‐based technologies while such management is s8ll possible.

CNS-ASU aims to encourage reflexivity

among the NSE research establishment and build capacity for anticipatory

governance

Reflexivity •  a capacity for social learning (by

individuals, groups, ins8tu8ons, publics) in the NSE enterprise narrowly and society broadly that expands the domain of and informs the available choices in decision making about nano.

Center for Nanotechnology in Society

Example 2: Real-‐Time Technology Assessment (RTTA)

CNS-‐ASU Programs Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU)

Real-‐Time Technology Assessment 1.   Research and Innova:on

Systems Analysis (RISA) 2.   Public Opinion and Values

(POV) 3.   Delibera:on and Par:cipa:on

(D&P) 4.   Reflexivity Assessment and

Evalua:on (RAE)

Thema:c Research Clusters 1.   Human Iden:ty,

Enhancement & Biology 2.   Equity 3.   Urban Design, Materials &

the Built Environment (Nano & the City)

Performance and Outcomes

Important scholarly and reference works •  Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society •  Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society series

Large, multi-year datasets & tools •  Publications •  Patents •  Public opinion •  Expert opinion •  Media •  STIR field data •  Policy documents •  Urban design elements

Demonstrations of public engagement at scale •  National Citizens’ Technology Forum •  FutureScape City Tours

Extended networks of individuals and institutions •  Scores of institutions in public and private sectors •  More than 100 international visitors •  Thousands of participants

Generative, influential vision & methods •  Anticipatory governance •  Real-time technology assessment

In-depth study of critical, long-term societal issues •  Human Identity, Enhancement & Biology •  Equity, Equality and Responsibility

•  Nano and the City

New techniques and methods for •  Anticipating futures •  Engaging publics •  Integrating across “two cultures” •  Training students

Scholarly impact •  100-150 peer-reviewed publications •  1000-2000 citations

Human capital •  New scholars •  Enlightened citizens •  Informed decision-makers •  Reflexive scientists and engineers

Example 2: Real-‐Time Technology Assessment (RTTA) Center for Nanotechnology in Society

Reflec:ons •  CNS-‐ASU: A new na8onal and interna8onal resource

informing and s,mula,ng scien8fic and policy dialogue about nanotechnology emergence

•  Innova8ve approaches (for the US), incl. datamining, scenarios, wikis, ci8zen panels, science engagement, policy, business and community engagement

•  Has caught aPen8on of some scien8sts (but, of course, not the majority), policymakers (na8onal, local)

•  Resources: $1.2m / year –  Enough to establish a model, but not to replicate?

•  Limited to one technology (albeit a general purpose technology)

•  Can it be replicated for other emerging technologies, e.g. synthe8c biology?

CNS-ASU Mission

¡  Research

¡  Train

¡  Engage

¡  Partner

Example 2: Real-‐Time Technology Assessment (RTTA) Center for Nanotechnology in Society

Example 3: Responsible Research and Innova8on (RRI)

Core principles: •  Focusing research and innova8on to social or environmental benefit. •  Involvement of society, from beginning to end of the innova8on process, •  Assessing social, ethical and environmental impacts, risks and opportuni8es,

both now and in the future, alongside the technical and commercial. •  Developing oversight mechanisms with the capability to an8cipate and

manage problems •  Openness and transparency integrated into the research and innova8on

process. [Adapted from Sutcliffe 2014]

Concept RRI = transparent interac8ve process involving societal actors and innovators to address the acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of innova8on processes and products [Adapted from von Schomberg 2011]

Emergence – beginning in Europe post-‐2000s, expanding post 2010s

Mul:ple Dimensions of RRI*

23


*S8lgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innova8on, Research Policy, 2013 [Not all techniques included]

• Foresight; Technology assessment; Horizon scanning; Scenarios; Vision assessment; Socio-‐literary techniques

An8cipa8on

• Mul8disciplinary collabora8on and training; Embedded social scien8sts and ethicists in laboratories; Ethical technology assessment; Codes of conduct; Moratoriums

Reflexivity

• Consensus conferences Ci8zens’ juries and panels Focus groups; Science shops; Delibera8ve mapping Inclusion

• Cons8tu8on of grand challenges and thema8c research programmes; Regula8on; Standards; Open access and other mechanisms of transparency

Responsiveness

EPSRC (UK) 2013 -‐ Framework for Responsible Innova:on

•  RRI Concept –  Responsible Innova8on is a process that seeks to promote crea8vity and

opportuni8es for science and innova8on that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest.

•  Key elements -‐ ANTICIPATE, REFLECT, ENGAGE AND ACT (AREA) –  An:cipate – describing and analysing the impacts, intended or otherwise, (e.g.

economic, social, environmental) that might arise. This does not seek to predict but rather to support an explora8on of possible impacts and implica8ons that may otherwise remain uncovered and liPle discussed.

–  Reflect – reflec8ng on the purposes of, mo8va8ons for and poten8al implica8ons of the research, and the associated uncertain8es, areas of ignorance, assump8ons, framings, ques8ons, dilemmas and social transforma8ons these may bring.

–  Engage – opening up such visions, impacts and ques8oning to broader delibera8on, dialogue, engagement and debate in an inclusive way.

–  Act – using these processes to influence the direc8on and trajectory of the research and innova8on process itself.

See: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/Pages/area.aspx


Importance of meta

frameworks

Centre for Synthe:c Biology of Fine & Speciality Chemicals

SYNBIOCHEM Directors

SYNBIOCHEM Cabinet

DESIGN BUILD TEST RRI DATA CPI Gene Mill

Grand Challenges

Themes Centre Targeted Projects Teams

SCAFFOLDS Alkaloids, Flavonoids, Terpenes Faulon, ScruPon, Turner

DATA

Cura8

on

Carole Gob

le

RESPONSIBLE RE

SEAR

CH &

INNOVA

TION -‐ Shapira

TAILORING NRP’s and PKS scaffolds Toolkits Cytochromes P450 oxida8on and glycosyla8on

Flitsch, Leys, Munro

REGULATION Orthogonal riboswitches Light senor and signalling circuits

Micklefield, Dixon

CHASSIS Chassis based on Halomonas sp, Geobacter, Yeast Host cell environment and microcompartment engineering Engineering end-‐product transport

Delneri, Lloyd, Takano

PROCESS Process engineering challenges – e.g. downstream separa8on Scaling up toolkit Process analy8cal technology

Chen, Mar8n, Pearson

Design and engineer biological parts, devices and systems for sustainable fine and speciality chemicals produc:on, including new products and intermediates for drug development, agricultural chemicals and new materials for sustainable manufacturing.

SYNBIOCHEM – Responsible Research and Innova:on [RRI]

Responsible Research and Innova:on (RRI) -‐ analysis, collabora8on and delibera8on to an8cipate, prepare for, or mediate impacts of emerging new technologies in society, economy, and the environment.

Synthe:c Biology Context – Why RRI? Worldwide scien:fic and commercial interest

Societal concerns and expecta:ons Growing debates

Emerging policy frameworks

Transforma:onal poten:al q  Interdisciplinary team – social sciences, ethics and humani8es, science & innova8on policy, and sustainability q  Embedded in centre; Networked interna8onally q  Outputs: Research, models, prac8ce, policy

Shapira

Randles

Balmer

Azapagic

Chan

SYNBIOCHEM RRI Group

MBS/M

IOIR Inno

va8o

n Re

search

Sociology

ISEI & Bioethics

ChE

Assess research targets, commercial applica:ons, innova:on pathways

An:cipate poten:al risks, ethical, legal, regulatory

issues

Analyse life-‐cycle & sustainability implica:ons

Prepara:on and training of centre researchers

Development of modula:on strategies (upstream /

midstream / downstream)

Real-‐8me assessment and an8cipa8on

Ethics and delibera8on

Sustainable industrial systems

Collabora8ve development

Engagement and delibera:on (mul:-‐way) with scien:sts,

companies, external stakeholders, publics

SYNBIOCHEM RRI Processes

Comparisons OTA Model CNS Model SYNBIOCHEM Model

1970s-‐1980s 2005-‐2015 2014-‐2019

Downstream TA Upstream RTTA Embedded RRI

Focused on Washington Distributed structure Integrated center

Mul8ple technology scope Single: Nanotechnology Single: Synthe8c Biology

Target group: policy decision makers

Target group: scien8sts, decision-‐makers, business, NGOs, public(s)

Established exper8se Established exper8se plus capacity building

Established techniques Able to experiment with new methods

Reports, tes8mony, informal interac8ons

Mul8ple dissemina8on and engagement modes

Embedded in policy cycle Program cycle Center cycle

Top-‐down forms of influence ð stakeholders

BoPoms-‐up indirect influence ð stakeholders

Direct interac8ons with scien8sts; itera8ve stakeholder interac8ons

TA, RTTA, and RRI

Comparing Synbio and Nano

Different pre-‐contexts •  Both are post-‐GMO – aPen8on to societal implica8ons •  Nanotechnology: social scien8sts engaged in considering

societal implica8ons (2000s+) –  No prior societal research infrastructure –  21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act created societal research agenda

–  Separate programs, centers e.g. NNI-‐NSF Centers for Nanotechnology in Society

•  Synbio: now aPrac8ng social science aPen8on (2008+) –  Extension from human genomics (ELSI) –  Transdisciplinary centers (medicine, law, ethics) –  New synbio research centers with embedded societal research capabili8es (UK Synbio Centres)

www.gauchergroup.biology.gatech.edu/

28

Research Papers in Synthe8c Biology

29 Social science, humani8es (SSH) papers

Science (SCI) p

apers

Source: WoS + Scopus, Publications to Mid-2014. Countries allocated by author affiliations. Broader definition.

SCI SSH

Synthe8c biology -‐ The story so far (to 2014) A transatlan8c axis of research outputs

Synbio Reference Dimensions

Auto-Correlation Map

Cited Authors (Cleaned) (Clea...

Top links shown> 0.75 1 (0)0.50 - 0.75 3 (0)0.25 - 0.50 32 (67)< 0.25 0 (636)

Powell, A JPowell, A J

Davies, J FDavies, J FChurch, GChurch, G

Weiss R .Weiss R .

Craig Venter, JCraig Venter, J

T ucker J onathan, BT ucker J onathan, B

S chmidt MarkusS chmidt Markus

R o, D -‐KR o, D -‐K

R ai Arti K .R ai Arti K .

Pottage AlainPottage Alain

Paul R abinowPaul R abinow

O'Malley Maureen A.O'Malley Maureen A.

Nordmann A.Nordmann A.

Morange MichelMorange Michel

Maurer, S MMaurer, S M

Mackenzie AdrianMackenzie Adrian

Latour BrunoLatour Bruno

Keasling, J DKeasling, J D

J asanoff, S heilaJ asanoff, S heila

Heinemann, MHeinemann, M

Glass J .I.Glass J .I.

Gibson, D GGibson, D G

Garfinkel Michele S .Garfinkel Michele S .

Keller E velyn FoxKeller E velyn Fox

Endy DrewEndy Drew

E lowitz, M BE lowitz, M B

Deplazes-‐Z emp A.Deplazes-‐Z emp A.

De Lorenzo Vic torDe Lorenzo Vic tor

Collins, J JCollins, J J

Cello J .Cello J .

Carlson R obert H.Carlson R obert H.

Campos L .Campos L .

Calvert J .Calvert J .

Brent, RBrent, R

Boldt J .Boldt J .

Benner S teven, ABenner S teven, A

Basu, SBasu, S

Balmer AndrewBalmer Andrew

Arkin, A PArkin, A P

E rnesto AndrianantoandroE rnesto Andrianantoandro

Philosophy of science

S&T Studies

Law

Bioscience

Bioengineering

Venter

Governance

Ethics

Synthe8c biology social science

Synthetic biology: 314 SSH papers (2000-2014) from WOS SSCI/AHCI + Scopus = 7200+ cited references (Shapira et al., JRI, 2015)

Nodes = # papers citing work by authors Links = degree of association in being cited by two or more papers, VP path-erasing algorithm focuses on strongest links Multiple dimensions reduced into two-dimensional space, proximity of nodes indicates association

30

Nano-‐Synbio Social Science Comparison

q Broad disciplinary bases

q Low overlap nano & synbio knowledge sources – Different sets of highly cited knowledge sources – Very few common shared highly cited papers

q Integra:on: synbio social science connec8ons with natural science 31

Observa:ons & Insights 1 q More than 50 years of formalized approaches to prepare for

the implica8ons of new technologies q Na8onal frameworks are important in establishing condi8ons

for systema8c technology prepara8on (e.g. US 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act; EPSRC Framework for Responsible Innova8on)

q Responsible research and innova8on builds upon, and has connec8ons to a series of earlier concepts which con8nue to be relevant in science and technology policy, including technology assessment and real-‐8me technology assessment.

32


3

Observa:ons & Insights 2 q New: responsible research and innova8on is envisaged as a

broader and more norma8ve process. q Breadth and inclusiveness:

–  Delibera8on should be undertaken not only by experts, government officials, and directly-‐connected interests but also more widely with broader publics and less powerful but s8ll affected groups.

q Norma:ve targets: –  Expecta8on, at least among some proponents, that processes of

responsible research and innova8on should not only seek to mi:gate poten:al risks but also lead to the pursuit of different scien:fic goals, alternate scien:fic pathways (modula8on) and the redesign of technology so as to bePer meet societal goals and address global grand challenges.

33


Challenges and Opportuni:es •  Classic reasons for policy failure:

–  1. Problems in goal se}ng and policy design –  2. Problems in policy implementa8on

•  The s8ll evolving domain of responsible research and innova8on suffers from both of these

•  Challenge 1: There is ongoing debate about what exactly responsible research and innova8on is and what it means.

•  Challenge 2: Uncertainty about how to opera8onalize responsible research and innova8on (what means of transla8on, what measures)

34


Learning by doing & reflec:ng •  RRI is presently in a mode of learning by doing and reflec8ng

•  Phase of experimenta8on* – Modes of organiza8on: free-‐standing v. embedded researchers

– Modes of modula8on: how to use insights gained from engagement and delibera8on – what should scien8sts do, what should policymakers and industry do?

–  System integra8on: how to integrate RRI into related systems (e.g. from science to universi8es, funding bodies, industry)

* Opportuni8es to learn through compariso 35


The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones

J.M. Keynes (The General Theory, 1936)

From%TAto%RRI:%What’s%new%in%preparing%for%the% … · 2015. 3. 22. ·...

Documents

Transcript of From%TAto%RRI:%What’s%new%in%preparing%for%the% … · 2015. 3. 22. ·...