We find ourselves in a remarkable era, a pivotal moment in human history. There is a strong case to be made that we are finally realizing the ideals set forth during the Enlightenment. The scientific method has equipped us with an abundance of objective knowledge, allowing us to invent tools that enable manipulation of nature itself. While the initial industrial revolution applied the principles of physics and chemistry to create machinery and synthetic products, we have now reached a stage where we can alter the very fabric of nature: we can split atomic nuclei to harness energy and even forge new ones; we can edit genetic codes letter by letter, crafting hybrids and species that do not exist in nature; and we utilize cellular machinery to interpret new directives using synthetic amino acids, producing biochemical entities that are entirely novel.

The capabilities of our technology today suggest that “this time is different.” We may either address economic challenges or threaten life on Earth; even if we avoid these extremes, we could drastically diminish the planet's livable areas. We might see the emergence of custom-made human species or create entirely “unnatural” ecosystems with new plants, animals, and materials. What distinguishes our current situation is that innovations can lead to rapid transformations, shifting the paradigm in ways not voted upon but universally shared in consequence. Historically, disruptive innovations have shaped our trajectory, yet until recently, such changes did not fundamentally alter nature itself; the effects were typically gradual. The introduction of chemical and radioactive pollution marked a turning point, where technology began to produce outcomes that exceeded our intuitive understanding, especially as these consequences became increasingly complex.

J.M. Keynes identified two factors contributing to the slow pace of historical progress: a lack of significant technological advancements and inadequate capital accumulation. In his essay “The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” he envisioned a future where humanity could escape the confines of profit-driven motives: “We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. But the time for this is not yet.” He suggested that “avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still,” as they are the only forces capable of leading us out of the “tunnel of economic necessity” into the light. We could contend that the external costs accumulated through industrialization stem from prioritizing utility over virtue, and profit over broader, long-term values. Thus, the developed world now faces a scenario where the negative externalities of our lifestyle seem to overshadow its benefits. Meanwhile, the developing world is still navigating its own “tunnel of necessity,” where practical concerns take precedence over ideals. However, their impact on the global commons remains minor compared to the extensive influence of the developed West.

We arguably possess the technological means to foster economic growth while simultaneously mitigating the ecological footprint of industrial societies, should we choose to do so. Alternatively, we could opt for inertia, perpetuating the status quo and driving the planet into a new state. Unlike previous transformative phases in human history, which were driven by natural processes, this time is different; we are actively reshaping natural processes on a global scale. Moreover, contemporary technologies may usher in entirely new paradigms that remain beyond our current comprehension.

Alfred N. Whitehead offers a compelling framework for addressing societal choices and precautionary policies that transcend ideological divides, helping us emerge from Keynes’ “tunnel of necessity.” He posits that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.” Our focus on unhappiness merely highlights the “futility of escape.” Human agency is pivotal in establishing mechanisms that dictate outcomes, as it is society that creates incentives and sets in motion the inexorable workings of reality.

It is reasonable to assert that humanity is no longer hindered by a lack of innovation or insufficient capital. However, substantial portions of the globe are still experiencing the “tunnel of necessity,” while those who have emerged from it have not fundamentally reformed their values or practices. The externalities generated by our current industrial systems and the potential integration of new technologies carry global ramifications, leading to overarching “Tragedies of the Commons.” The shortcomings of top-down policies, shaped by expert assessments and enforced through technocratic means, are significant. Since we all share in the consequences of the global commons, fostering grassroots public engagement is essential. Our aim should be to devise and propose strategies to address this formidable challenge.

An illustrative case study for exploring public involvement with disruptive technologies is autonomous vehicles (AVs). This technology marks a progression, as it is based on vehicles that closely resemble existing models. The behavior of the AI systems guiding these vehicles aligns with familiar life parameters. However, it is likely true that “if commonsense protections are not in place to govern AV development, and problems occur, the public will reject AVs, and the opportunity this new technology presents to improve public safety will be lost.” This cautionary argument extends to technology and innovation more broadly. As we develop increasingly powerful technologies with less intuitive outcomes, unchecked advancements may culminate in problems that provoke public backlash. A populace that feels exploited by technological adoption will respond similarly to critiques from “postmodern” thinkers, framing their grievances in terms of power dynamics, status quo, relativism, and alternate truths. The potential beneficial applications of new technologies could then be overshadowed by contentious ideological disputes.

Academics have long recognized the necessity of involving the public in discussions about the impact of science and technology on society. The National Academies of the United States has advocated for policy-making as a “democratic action aiming at an optimal trade-off between different agendas and perspectives; scientists cannot dominate that discourse. The challenge lies in how to better incorporate science into the political landscape.” In the realm of new genetic editing technologies, the National Academy advises implementing safety and ethical regulations as a strategy to maintain public trust and preserve the potential benefits of these technologies for humanity.

Engaging an informed public can enhance precautionary policy design by introducing clarity. Recursive public discussions serve as a mechanism to infuse foresight and robustness into the policy-making process. The Royal Society’s concept of “intelligent openness” provides a roadmap for necessary changes to make science and technology more accessible. As summarized by a newspaper piece advocating for public involvement, intelligent openness entails that the data underpinning scientific claims must be accessible, understandable, usable, and assessable. “Accessible” means that information should be published online at minimal cost. “Understandable” implies that claims should be articulated in clear, everyday language. “Usable” suggests that data should be presented in formats conducive to analysis and that conclusions should be relevant to the public's everyday concerns. “Assessable” signifies that anyone with the requisite expertise and time should be able to rigorously evaluate the ideas presented. Scientists, statisticians, economists, and other experts can take on this responsibility. However, we owe it to ourselves to pose critical questions before sharing ideas on social media or allowing them to influence our decisions, diets, or interpersonal attitudes.

In “The Moral Machine Experiment,” citizens worldwide were presented with a “serious game” to express their preferences in moral dilemmas arising from unavoidable accidents involving AVs. The deployment of AVs is often taken for granted, assuming uniform attributes across the globe. This study represents a significant milestone in public engagement, allowing individuals to voice moral preferences regarding the societal implications of emerging technologies. However, moving forward, citizens should have the opportunity to articulate their moral choices ex-ante, before the deployment of new technologies, enabling them to define parameters and attributes that govern technologies within frameworks grounded in diverse value systems. For example, deploying AVs in Arizona differs significantly from implementation in countries across the Arabian Peninsula, Japan's Kyoto, Italy's medieval cities, or Paris.

Biotechnology in the commons, particularly gene-editing tools known as “CRISPR systems,” represents a new frontier. Their simplicity, low cost, and efficacy have already begun transforming laboratory genetic modifications of plants, animals, and insects, often outpacing public policy discussions. The molecular mechanisms underlying these systems are marvels of nature, and the practical applications derived from them enable unprecedented scientific inquiry. These tools have revolutionized biological science, with seemingly limitless potential. They could redefine GMOs and spawn new organisms with traits that nature could never produce. They might also be employed to engineer genetically female cows with male characteristics or sterile insects for large-scale use in agriculture or pest control. These advancements hold the promise of curing diseases, designing future generations, and creating organisms tailored to human preferences.

Previous academic discussions surrounding GMOs, the scientific method, and critiques of science provide a foundation for fostering productive dialogue. We are faced with choices and responsibilities. CRISPR systems raise all the pertinent issues related to previous generations of GMOs and industrial agriculture, along with a host of unique challenges. The best approach to move forward is to establish a dialogue that legitimizes perspectives across the spectrum, from “traditional science” to “postmodern criticism.” While scientists will defend their pursuit of objective knowledge about nature through the scientific method, it is essential to acknowledge that feelings of grievance and mistrust towards academic experts and “the establishment” are not unfounded. The U.S. government’s decision to exempt CRISPR-edited plants from GMO regulations and allow them to enter the market without labeling was predicated on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. While it may have been the correct choice, if any issues arise from such plants, public backlash could be amplified by anti-GMO organizations, justifying widespread mistrust towards established scientific authorities.

It is accurate to assert, following Karl Polanyi, that capitalist industrial societies have largely constructed systems based on self-regulating markets. Historically, economic activities were embedded within societal norms, rules, and traditions shaped by value systems. If we agree that we have traversed the “tunnel of necessity,” it is worth examining what it will take to gradually redefine the relationship between markets and citizens. Bringing issues to community attention early, before they become entrenched in established products, provides ample time to devise strategies for researching or managing the potential risks and opportunities associated with each powerful innovation. The manner in which each new technology is deployed will depend on the power dynamics within societies and the level of public information and participation, reflecting each society's sophistication.

New technologies are evolving more rapidly than Western democratic institutions can comprehend or regulate ahead of their commercialization. We risk allowing markets to dictate “the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” capturing Whitehead’s essence of tragedy. A pertinent example of this dilemma is the swift introduction of self-driving cars. As Wired magazine reported, “Analytics firm Inrix has created a tool that helps cities organize all the rules it expects humans to follow to help train self-driving cars.” This suggests that the public is expected to volunteer their efforts to assist corporations in profiting through the establishment of regulations that will fundamentally alter our way of life. This presents a false dichotomy. How can we instead cultivate a path that enables us to integrate technologies in ways that respect historical contexts, organically developed landscapes, and the unique heritages of communities? When new technologies and regulatory frameworks alter foundational aspects of societal organization, they may lead to a “remorseless working of things,” resulting in cumulative changes over time that reshape societal structures. When new technologies create opportunities for human activity without the prior establishment of behavioral norms, they risk leading to tragedies of the commons. When top-down management seeks to fill the role of “Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes?”—“Who supervises the supervisors?”—in today’s neoliberal climate, the answer often defaults to the interests that exploit the commons, legitimizing unequal access through selective regulation.

Research has shown that successful management of common-pool resources is achieved through diverse regimes or architectures for allocating rights. As the commons we face today are global in scope, and the tragedy of the commons poses a threat to humanity and all living species, adopting a precautionary approach in policy development is crucial. In the absence of hindsight, the best course of action is to make informed judgments ex-ante, with foresight. Biological systems have thrived through complexity and redundancy, whereas human engineering often prioritizes maximum efficiency. Organisms contain vestiges of phylogenetically obsolete traits and far more DNA than is routinely utilized, representing a certain mediocrity in final products. Grassroots democratic participation may need to embrace a level of mediocrity, both in process and outcomes, to achieve collective goals. However, incorporating an informed community will add complexity to the issues at hand, enriching the decision-making process. A diverse and large community will contribute multifaceted moral perspectives. Serious participatory democracy, combined with iterative analysis of significant issues, is the most effective tool we possess for enhancing clarity and foresight in policy design. This stands in stark contrast to the extensive list of policies imposed from above by experts at various governmental levels, which often yield disastrous results that the public must bear without having had a say.

The crux of the matter is: if economics is embedded in society, it falls upon us to determine which “remorseless workings of things” we choose to pursue and which “futility of escapes” we engage in. If society is embedded in economics or markets, we may already be entrenched: the remorseless workings are already in motion, and any attempts at escape are futile. The pressing question is whether science and technology are embedded within society, thus governed and appropriately constrained by societal values, or whether we have reached a point where societies have become embedded within markets, science, and technology. Once the commons is altered—through the extinction of species, the introduction of new organisms, the disruption of global balance, or the degradation of vibrant urban centers—proactive policy discussions may appear as missed opportunities.

We might argue that continuously reshaping societies to optimize the profitability of new technologies is a flawed approach. Instead, creating the potential for change and allowing societies to determine how to integrate new technologies is the only viable long-term path for survival. We contend that rather than presenting the public with a narrow set of pre-defined alternatives for adjusting the boundaries of disruptive technologies post-factum, we should focus on providing information that fosters an accumulation of questions and discussions across a diverse cultural landscape. Ultimately, this would lead to a grassroots consensus on desired limitations and directions for new technologies. Citizens would begin by educating themselves about technologies they are aware of, based on their assessments and biases, before being exposed to a broader array of emerging issues identified by experts, as highlighted in the article “Point of View: A Transatlantic Perspective on 20 Emerging Issues in Biological Engineering.”

References 1. Keynes, J. M. (1930). The Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren. Essays in Persuasion, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1963. 2. Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the Modern World, pg 13. Talcott Parsons, London 1925. 3. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248; DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. 4. Crowe, B. L. (1969). The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited. Science 166(3909), 1103–1107. 5. Claybrook, J., & Kildare, S. (2018). Autonomous vehicles: No driver…no regulation? Science 361(6397), 36–37. DOI: 10.1126/science.aau2715. 6. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/24623. 7. The Royal Society (2012). Science as an open enterprise, The Royal Society Science Policy Centre report 02/12 Issued: June 2012 DES24782. ISBN: 978–0–85403–962–3. 8. Harford, T. (2019). ‘Blue Monday’ pseudoscience undermines trust. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/d0649934-1f20-11e9-b126-46fc3ad87c65, 26/01/2019. 9. Awad, E. et al. (2018). The Moral Machine Experiment. Nature 59(563), Published online 24 October 2018. DOI:10.1038/s41586–018–0637–6. 10. Kuntz, M. (2012). The postmodern assault on science. If all truths are equal, who cares what science has to say? EMBO reports 13, 885–889; published online 18 September 2012; DOI:10.1038/embor.2012.130. 11. Herman, J.-P. (2013). Commentary to ‘The postmodern assault on science’ by Marcel Kuntz. EMBO Reports 14, 113–114; published online 21 December 2012; DOI:10.1038/embor.2012.209. 12. Kuntz, M. (2013). Why the postmodern attitude towards science should be denounced. EMBO Reports 14, 114–116; published online 11 January 2013; DOI:10.1038/embor.2012.214. 13. Dove, E. S., & Özdemir, V. (2013). ‘Regular science’ is inherently political. EMBO Reports 14, 113; published online 21 December 2012; DOI:10.1038/embor.2012.205. 14. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Beacon Press Group, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 15. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 16. Berkes, F. et al. (1989). The Benefit of The Commons. Nature 340, 91–93; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/340091a0. 17. Ostrom, E. et al. (1999). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284(5412), 278–282; DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5412.278. 18. Hoy, A. Q. (2018). Agricultural advances draw opposition that blunts innovation. Science 29 Jun 2018: Vol. 360, Issue 6396, 1413–1414; DOI: 10.1126/science.360.6396.1413. 19. Wintler, B. et al. (2018). Point of View: A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering. eLife 2017;6:e30247 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30247.