Get started
Work

Why is the world not a much better place now that so much more information is available?

Year: 2007
Type: article
Abstract: Reports of scientific meetings usually contain a recommendation that more research should be done – probably more often reflecting the generally-accepted axiom that more information will be useful than a real need for additional data. Governments spend a considerable proportion of their budgets to create and maintain agencies that will assemble information about all aspects of life in their own and other countries, near and far. Schools provide more and more information, and so do the media. People speak to each other – perhaps somewhat less than before – but continue to convey and exchange information. Most recently, electronics and computers created a revolutionary advance in possibilities of obtaining information. So, now that all this huge amount of information exists, the world should be rapidly becoming better. But it is not, because there is such a gap between this vast mass of information and its use. In part, the gap is produced by the fact that information is not equally available to all and that those who have access to information are advancing very fast, leaving those who do not have it further and further behind. There is a drop in literacy of the poor in many countries parallel to the increase in the numbers of personal computers in the population. Schoolteachers do not insist any longer on their pupils’ capacity to calculate with a paper and a pencil because pocket calculators are cheap: but the very poor now neither know how to add and substract nor do they have a calculator or computer to do it for them. Then, it seems that decisions about almost everything are slower. This is a consequence of several factors – collective responsibility, for example, is gaining ground over individual responsibility – but there is no doubt that, in part, decisions are more difficult to reach because of the vast amount of information that could also be relevant and needs consideration. Paradoxically, when faced with so much information that making a decision is difficult, decision-makers ask for yet additional information which is supposed to help them in reaching the best decision – but rarely does. It is also difficult to be certain that the rules that refer to the provision of information can be applied equitably. Take the example of informed consent to medical procedures. Doctors or researchers have the obligation to provide information to the persons – patients or subjects of a scientific exploration – so that these can take informed decisions. Just how much information is to be provided is not clear and may vary from person to person, thus introducing discrimination and inequity. Factors that influence the amount of information transmitted include the capacity of the persons who are to make decisions to understand the information they are presented, the limits of the investigators knowledge (eg, about possible long-term effects of a medication), the likes or dislikes for particular persons that the investigators might have, the time available for the provision of information and thinking about it before making a decision (eg, in case of interventions that have to be done without delay that could cause harm). Thus, while it is laudable to insist on ensuring that patients give informed consent about the interventions proposed to them, it is only clear what the word “consent” means – the patient says “yes” – but not what the word “informed” includes or excludes. The fact that the amount of information is increasing has little impact on the factors mentioned above, and scientists and physicians show remarkably little interest to render the knowledge they have understandable and available to all concerned. There is also the major problem of not being quite certain which information should be released and which should be kept secret and by whom. Let us remain in medicine to illustrate this: say that science has identified a gene responsible for the development of a disease– such as a burst of the medial cerebral artery at some point in life – what do we do with this information? Would we recommend to governments to screen their entire populations in order to identify persons who are at risk for this condition? Should these persons be prohibited from entering certain professions? Should insurance companies be allowed to exclude them from insurance schemes? Should the persons who have this abnormality be told about it although the artery may burst fifty or more years later, or never – should the individual die after a traffic accident, a terrorist attack, or because of a vicious infection? Should the information about the defect be required before permission is given for marriage? Society has not yet developed answers to such problems, and it is may be more important to decide what to do with new information than to invest all our energy in projects to obtain it. And one more problem – scientists who seek and obtain information are highly specialized and focused on their targets. They obtain detailed information in large amounts. But, by the definition of their disciplines and the very nature of their approach, they are usually not interested in placing their findings into a broader context or in linking it with information that other equally specialized scientists have obtained. There is unfortunately no discipline that is engaged in the development of methods of synthesis of the vast amount information that stems from the hundreds of sources – both scientific and non-scientific. In previous times, making a synthesis might have been easier because the information was not only more restricted in size but also more comprehensible. The jargons of scientific disciplines are rapidly becoming impenetrable. Thus, today, those who seek synthesis do not only have to deal with much more information but also have to face the difficult task of translating findings from jargon into a common language: perhaps this is why the amount of information is increasing so much faster than wisdom and the understanding of the world in its complexity. All these problems are no more then a dark lining on a silver cloud of new knowledge, that holds so much promise for a better future of mankind. We could find solutions to these problems, but to do so, we shall have to ensure that some of the energy now directed to the acquisition of information is diverted to the search for solutions to these problems and to others that will emerge as we reach higher horizons of knowledge about our world.
Source: PubMed
Language: English
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W31315555
FWCI:
Cites: 83
Cited by: 1
Related to: 10