[HOME] [NEXT]
POLS 410 LECTURE 3
"SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY"
I. Turning point in public perception of science & tech:
late 60's & early 70's.
-- Science & technology on the defensive for the 1st time
Esp. in most advanced industrial countries
Major cultural shift in the last 20 years.
Recognition of limits & scarcity
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962)
Paul Ehrlich: Pop. Bomb & End of Affluence (1968)
Club of Rome, Limits to Growth
* All human activities affect the earth's physical condition, but
two are disproportionately important: energy use &
population growth.
1950-1979: Fossil fuel use quadrupled worldwide
Food production doubled; auto. production quadrupled
Electrical generation multiplied 8-fold.
1950-1987: Population doubled
II. Worldviews, paradigms & sustainability
A. Neo-Malthusians
1. Malthus (writing in 1798) predicted that industrial revolution wd.
permit unprecedented pop. growth which wd. eventually outstrip
ability of natural resources to provide for it.
Starvation, disease & poverty are mechanisms for
stabilizing population.
>> 1979, Global 2000 Report: Carter, interdisciplinary
-- Not just romantic reaction to sci & tech.
B. Cornucopians
1. Reaction to Neo-Malthusians, esp. to Global 2000
Late 70's-early 80's
2. Simon & Kahn, The Resourceful Earth
3. Stress resource abundance, human innovation, substitutability.
Technological optimists:
Q: What devt. did Malthus fail to see which has
countered the trend toward mass-starvation w/ exponential
population growth?
A: Mechanized agriculture, use of petroleum-based fertilizers
& pesticides
4. Enlightenment perspective (w/out deomocracy)
C. Same debate continues on most envt'l problems,
1. But envt'lists can also be technological optimists:
envt'l regulation gives signal for new mkts >>
new tech. (ozone, acid rain, energy shortage)
III. Paradigm shift (Dennis Pirages, Lester Milbrath)
A. 3 realms: #2 & #3 have been dominant in social sciences,
isolated from #1; Most disciplines stay within one realm in seeking
explanations; but in the real world, the 3 are closely linked.
Disembodied human beings (rtl minds) at center of world.
B. Dominant Social Paradigm: Exclusionist
-- ppl exist apart from nature & can dominate it (excludes nature)
Nature = resources
Last 300 years - Atypical; associated w/ industrial revolution
Cultures, institutions & values assumed to evolve & exist apart from
geological, biological & ecological constraints.
Science & technology can overcome all or most physical constraints;
can provide substitutes for limited resources.
Embedded notion that nature is abundant, resources are virtually
unlimited.
C. New social paradigm: inclusionist
Gives primacy to techno-ecological realm as ground of
all human activity
More humble, less anthropocentric.
Offered by Pirages as a post-industrial paradigm.
Most impt. feature: Can be used to predict & analyze
global futures
Q: what concept discussed last time reflects the new
social paradigm?
A: sustainable development
D. Reflects 2 faces of science & technology (sort of)
1. Dominant = positive; Enlightenment
Positivists: all life shd. be based on science
2. Subordinate = Negative
E. Problems w/ inclusionist paradigm
1) Should technology & nature really be in the same circle?
Yes, they are both on the physical plane, more so
than the other two, But isn't tech. a human activity? Isn't
is more closely related to social structures than natural
resources per se?
-- Doesn't lumping them together allow cornucopians to claim
that they are inclusionists, since all of their solutions
to scarcity & envt'l degradation come from technological
advances?
2) Indus. revolution grew out of changes in values & social
structures, not just (or even primarily, for that matter) out of
changes at the material level. In fact, the roots of exclusionist
thinking are historically antecedent to the industrial revolution.
-- Rise of ntn-state, secularization & break w/
Rome, Enlightenment thinking.
e.g., John Locke as exclusionist: defines
human beings in terms of rationality, and this
entails industriousness & the ability to use land
IV. Conventional view of rel-ship bet. sci/tech & politics:
A. Science gives objective facts from which policy decisions are made.
1. Depends upon fact/value distinction
-- called into Q. by phil. of science:
a. Context of discovery (observation)
Choice of research topics is socially &
politically determined, esp. after 1945
-- Funding (BIG SCIENCE)
Industrial Revol. can be interpreted as extension of
one innovation: transformation of science into
capital.
b. Context of justification (theory)
Theory-ladenness of observation (Kuhn)
Science = social inst. w/ its own rules,
norms & practices
-- most scientific kn. accepted on authoriy
Evidence & reason are impt., but what counts as
evidence & reason are socially determined.
(EX: Ant. ozone hole not detected by satellites;
scientists skeptical of unknown
British Antarctic Survey.)
B. Technology is a neutral tool, to be used for good or ill, with no
inherent social value.
>> R&D shd. not be limited; every possibility shd. be
brought to fruition.
1. Technology takes on a momentum of its own
(EX: Manhattan Project continued after German
defeat)
2. Techn. doesn't seem neutral to its users or victims
Positive EXs: phone, refrigerator, bike (car?)
Negative Exs: Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims; women who
painted radium dials on clocks; Kurdish victims of Iraqi
chemical weapons; future generations who will probably not
see car & fossil fuel as neutral
3. Notion of tech. as divorced from social structures is
historically inaccurate.
David Noble: history of engineering profession is
bound up w/ corporate capitalism from its beginnings in the
19th C. to present.
4. Industrial production techniques are embedded in a particular
social theory: Taylorism (Frederick)
"Scientific management": prime value = efficiency
C. The communication of scientific facts requires framing &
interpretation (depends upon language; rhetorical nature can
be hidden)
1. EX: Carcinogenic chemical may increase cancer rate from 10 in
1 million to 15 in 1 million. This can be described either as
a 50% increase or an increase of 5 in 1 million.
Excellent literature on psychology of risk perception:
Tversky, Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein
Also, cultural factors & risk perception:
Jasanoff, Dietz & Rycroft
D. Interactive view of sci/tech & politics
Trans-scientific = questions which can be asked of science and yet
not answered by science (safety of nuclear energy)
>> greater role for expert advice in policy making.
-- technocracy?
1. Advisers associated with turbulent conditions:
* complexity, dynamism, uncertainty
2. Limitations of expert advice
a. Experts can be fired, ignored, pitted against
one another, their advice distorted.
b. Misunderstood bec. experts & policy mkrs live in
different worlds, speak diff languages.
-- Time frames diverge
-- Narrowly specialized experts tend to neglect
soc & econ. implications of their recommendations;
may be uneasy in world of compromise
-- Policy mkrs. may be awestruck by technical
language ( cult of doctor worship)
or may ignore parts of prob. they don't understand.
c. Conflict bet. democratic values & heavy reliance on expert
advice (technocracy)