Performing the Future

Abstract

Drama is a relatively unexplored tool in academic science education. This paper addresses in what way the use of drama may allow science students to deepen their understanding of recent developments in the emerging and controversial field of neuroenhancement, by means of a case study approach. First, we emphasise the congruency between drama and science, notably the dramatic dimension of experimental research. Subsequently, we draw on educational literature to elaborate the potential of using drama as a teaching modality, specifically focusing on the ethical and moral dimensions of future techno-scientific innovations. Our case study consisted of a drama experiment as a module in a philosophy course on human enhancement. Twenty-two students from various science disciplines performed multiple roles, as authors, actors, audience and reviewers. Qualitative data were collected on the educational process and student performance during the course, i.e. observations and video recordings of class discussions, group work and plays, interviews and questionnaires. Our drama experiment proved to be effective in enabling students to explore and relate to a future life world affected by enhancement technologies. It allowed them to deepen their awareness of social and ethical implications of neurotechnologies and of the different viewpoints people may have on this issue in academic, professional or everyday settings. Moreover, drama allowed them to develop a reflexive position of their own in the neuro-enhancement debate by enacting a moral dilemma in front of an audience. Our results confirm the potential of drama as a tool for exploring techno-scientific futures in science education.

Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs)

“…The idea that drama and theatre can play an inspirational role in deliberations on the future societal implications of science and technology, for instance, is wide-spread [30, 31]. Usually, this involves the performance of a play by professional or amateur actors before a live audience of, say, students or lay citizens, as happened for example during one particular MLE event where three scenarios were performed by a university theatre group presenting risks and various options, side effects and future perspectives of DBS.…”

“…More traditional and abstract methods (such as lectures or group discussions) appear to have a less memorable impact on participants (cf. [30]).…”

“…As a preparatory exercise, we invited 22 science students who participated in a philosophy course on neuro-enhancement to write and perform a play of their own addressing the social and ethical dilemmas involved. The plays were presented during one of the sessions of the course, and the winning team was invited to perform their play on stage during the NERRI Science Café, before a live audience of about 130 visitors ([3, 30], p. 34). Our question was: what will students gain from such an experience?…”

“…Whilst experimentation itself can be regarded as a dramatic form of research (often involving enactments in front of an audience of students, colleagues, or even journalists etc. ), drama may function as an ‘ethical laboratory’ to explore and critically reflect on possible ethical and societal implications, now or in the near future ([3, 30], p. 34).…”

“…In response to the item ‘The theatre assignment helped me to gain insight in how emerging technologies could influence daily life’, the mean score was 4.24 (with 92% of the participants scoring 4 or 5). And in response to the item ‘The theatre assignment helped me to gain insight in other people’s opinions and arguments’, the mean score was again 4.24 with 88% of the participants scoring 4 or 5 ([30], p. 885). Moreover, as one of the students commented: ‘That we succeeded in stimulating thoughts on this issue was proven by the fact that a lot of the topics in the discussion following the play were directly linked to the issues we touched upon in our act, culminating in a debate with the audience on whether people would rather be treated by the rational and enhanced or by an empathic but non-enhanced doctor; a vote split the audience roughly in half’ (p. 886).…”