Insatiable Curiosity: Innovation in a Fragile Future (review)

In this book Helga Nowotny, a salient figure in science studies and innovation policy, investigates a central issue in the project of modernity. Scientists are insatiably curious about the future, and they have always been ambitious to shape it, and yet they have presently seen their ambitions severely eroded by unforeseen contingencies and technological vulnerabilities. Nowotny is concerned that “Perhaps we have really lost our future—in that we have lost the feeling of being able to control it” (p. 113). So, what has happened and how are we to proceed?

Nowotny takes us on a journey that deals with this issue in three ways. In part 1, “The Emergence of the New,” she highlights the history of scientific curiosity, first as it became a driving force and then as it was severely tamed. Once, the scientific method channeled and supported curiosity, but this was before it was subordinated by the language and methods of economics. Here, she stresses the “capacity of aspiration,” a term introduced by the anthropologist Arjun Appadurai to capture the peculiar difficulties of developing countries, but suggests that this is also applicable to Europe and the United States, where people are overwhelmed by the speed of innovation.

Nowotny’s second part, “Paths of Curiosity,” deals with the institutional conditions that enable and facilitate curiosity, and in her third part, “Innovation in a Fragile Future,” she explores the possibilities for a renewal of these conditions. In this context she presents an interesting reflection on The Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the way in which it speaks with one voice, one technocratic voice, devoid of pluralism and uncertainty. So, while it seems that the content of the report is not fully outdated, the approach definitively is.

The epilogue is a response to Bruno Latour’s famous remark that we have never been modern: while modernity claimed to separate “nature” and what is “social,” it never achieved this separation but only the creation of hybrids that are both “natural” and “social.” Nowotny points to the unique character of the project of modernity and argues that we should embrace its ambivalence and vulnerability, rather than suppressing it with notions of utopia or dystopia, or with indifference.

Nowotny’s thoughts and her essayistic phrasing are both refreshing and inspiring. Occasionally, however, she is confusing. Consider, for instance, the following quote in which “curiosity” figures as the main character:

The fear of the new inhibits curiosity, even if curiosity is not completely intimidated by the fear it creates. But curiosity begins to hesitate and wobble. It seeks escapes and wants to insure itself. . . . It seeks new paths and willingly accepts that some are wrong turns. It seeks risks. . . .

. . . . It speculates, tries out, and has great difficulty learning that it should consider the consequences.

(p. 52).

Here, as well as in many other places, Nowotny’s focus on ideas, attitudes, and ambitions tends to overlook the particular actors, institutions, and events that have shaped the movements she describes. At times she refuses to be specific at all, speaking only in terms of whole centuries and entire continents. She does not satisfy the reader’s curiosity.

Nevertheless, this book is rich, compelling, and intriguing. It invites us to regain ownership of the future, including its concomitant uncertainties, surprises, and disappointments. Curiosity should be allowed to be playful and creative. After all, to address the future, we need a language able to strengthen our “capacity for aspiration.”