approaches to the study of science and technology and future

8/8/2019 approaches to the study of science and technology and future

1/36

APPROACHES

TO THESTUDY OFSCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY,AND THE

FUTUREBy Group 5


2/36

Members:Raymond Jovenal

Richard Jovenal

Christian Alvaro CapunoMariella Isabelle Blas

Mary Zarlyn Constantino

Rachelle Villar

Mary Helen Yutuc


3/36

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY

OF SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY,AND THE

FUTURE

Predictive-Speculative Studies

Forecasts the content ortiming of future technologicalor scientific innovations,either within a single technical

field or across a widespectrum of such fieldsSupplements major socialconsequences to their

predictions


4/36

Extrapolative-Planning

StudiesProject currentscience and technology-

related trends into thefuture and estimatewhat steps society will

have to copesuccessfully with theseoutcomes.


5/36

Projective-CautionaryFocus on what they see as loomingthreats to human survivalOverpopulation and pollution asexamples-Robert Heilbroner


6/36

Structural-constraint

Bell has limited himself to identifyingand analyzing a number of emergingbasic structural frameworks ortransformations that, while notdetermining the future of the UnitedStates or the world in the year 2013,

allegedly constrain possible scenariosfor the future at that time.


7/36

Change-PrerequisiteFocuses onchanges that

allegedly must takeplace if a desiredsocial future is tocome to pass.


8/36

4 CULTURAL

OBSTACLES

This focuses organization of the worldinto sovereign, economically competitivenational state, the skewing of the nationresearch and development activity byentrenched military interests and thecontributions from powerful vestedinterests.ANACHRONISTIC EDUCATIONA nachronistic notion- pertains to what

is to be an educated and cultural wellbeing. These notions are residues of theideals of 19th century European andAmerican elite institutions.


9/36

Liberal arts studentsDavid Bazelon- former chief justice of the5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals inWashington D.C.- He viewed the former as unrealistic andthe latter as running the risk of creatingsurrogate judges. Courts should not getinvolved either in assessing the merits ofcompeting scientific arguments- somethingfor which they lack knowledge and trainingor- substituting their own value preferencesfor those agency whose action are underreview.


10/36

Baseline's proposal is unconvincing on 3 counts:y It fails to address itself to the important and

expanding range of cases with significant science ortechnology components that are not appeals ofregulatory-agency decisions.

y While Bazelon is probably right in saying that it

would be futile to try to substantially raise judgesscientific conscious at this late date, that is by nomeans the only option available.

y Assuming it were concluded that any may attempt atrealizing technical literacy in some field of science or

technology were doomed to fail appointment ofexpert science advisors to sit at the right hand of a

judge when he is considering a case with scientificoverstones is, again, not the only alternative.


11/36

History:y 1951- Harry S. Truman- 1st President to

have formal science advisory group consistingof eminent scientist.

y 1957- Russian Sputnik satellite, Dwight D.Eisenhower appointed James R. Killian,president of the Massachusetts institute ofTechnology advisory committee (PSAC).

y John F. Kennedy- had a close relationshipwith his top advisor, Jerome Weisner, also aformer president of MIT>

y 1973-Pres. Richard M. Nixon terminated thepresidential science advisor post and the PSACgroup after its members made public theirdisagreement with his views on the merits on

developing American supersonictransport(SST) and new antiballistic missilesystem.

y 1976 congress mandated the creation of whitehouse office of science and technology policyor (OSTP)


12/36

Jimmy Carter- subsequently reinstatedthe post of presidential science advisor

1980s OSTP with its small staff andmodest budget had negligible influence onexecutive-branch science and technologypolicy including the roughly $60 billionspend by the US federal government onresearch and development in 1988.STS literacy- basic knowledge about theways science and technology function in,after and are affected by society in

general and their on society in particular.-Essential element of scientific andengineering competence.


13/36

Technological Maximality-the second obstacle to improve social management of

Science and technology involves a recurrent pattern of

socio-technical practice characteristic of thecontemporary western society, especially but notexclusively in the US.

y The pattern in question involves the interplay of:y Technologyy Rightsy NumbersTechnological Maximality- practiced under the auspices of

rights as traditionally understood and as held and

exercised by increasing number of people, is delute ordiminish the overall societal quality of life.-this concept is also intended to encompass other

phenomena, such as the intensive use of a technic in afragile environment or delicate situation


14/36

y Rights as traditionally understood- refers

to rights as they have long been constructedin the modern west, including the belief thatthey may never morally be violated. Rightsoften interpreted in this absolutist wayinclude the rights to life, property right ,

mobility rights and procreative rights.

y Increasing numbers of people- refers topresence in many kinds of situation of ever-

increasing numbers of individuals whosupposedly holds rights of the foregoingsort and who exercise them, among otherways, by using various technologies


15/36

Patterns of repeated patterns of socio-technical practice

y This troubling triadic cultural pattern

manifest itself in a variety of waysy The Increasing no. of individual engaging

in technologically maximalist practices assomething they have violate right to do.

y intensive, sometimes extended use oflife-prolonged technologies or

technological procedures in treatingthousands of terminally ill or irreversiblycomatose Pts, or those needing an organtransplant or other life supporttreatment, as supposedly sanctioned bythe inviolable right of life.

y The proliferation of mopeds, all-terrain,snowmobile, and other kinds of versatiletransport vehicles in environmentallyfragile or wilderness areas, as supposedlysanctioned by riders mobility rights;


16/36

The proliferation at high- rise office building indowntown city centers, as supposedly sanctioned

by developers properly rights; andThe proliferation of individual with fertilityproblems seeking access to human reproductivetechnologies of various sorts, recourse to which

is supposedly guaranteed by their procreativerights.

Other problematic phenomena exemplifying thispattern of socio-technical practice include:- Infestation of grand canyon national park-Manhattanization of urban environments


17/36

Rights are widely viewed in modern western cultureas:

y God- giveny Individualy Immutabley Inviolable

America- increase in population is more is better isaliveChina- draconian approach to population control to

which China has resorted in recent years issobering In this connection.

Consequences of technological maximality practiced:y Increase in populationy Unlimited individual rights of life


18/36

Procreation, mobility and propertySerious problems in an age of mass-produced,potent, huge or costly technics.Lawrence Tribe- looming questions of survivalaside, few tasks are more urgent for the future

quality of life in the US than that of sensitivelyusing public policy to channel science andtechnology so as to enhance rather than degradethe fabric of our collective environment and

ensure the dignity of the lives of all men andwomen.


19/36

FREEEDOM OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

FREEDOM OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Struggles over the two cultural obstacles

thus far- Anarchonistic and education andtroubling triad

Robert Sinsheimer

A professor of biology.

Case for selectively restrictly scientific

inquiry has 3 parts:He offers several examples of

research,pursue of which he regards as

inopportune and of dubious merit

He attempts to show that his position

dismissed out of hand on the grounds that it

s implementation is infeasible.

Finally, Sinsheimers attempts to make the

case for restraint


20/36

Sinsheimers case for the philosophical justifiability of

se,ective restriction of science rest on 5 main arguments.

First- the likely application of the result obtained from the

certain ines of scientific inquiry.

Second- given human frailty and the fact that human

rationality, foresight, adaptability,.

Third- failure to selectively limit scientific inquiry could so

destabilize society.

Fourth- the restriction of science should be limited to the

level of application of knowledge rather than to its

acquisition.

Fifth- changes in the nature of science and technology.

Baltimores Case

He is opposed to limiting scientific inquiry in any way othe

than determining the pace of basic scientific innovation.


21/36

Baltimore offers 5 reasons for thinking that limiting

the domain of permissible research.

FIRST: He contends that the criteria determiningwhat areas to restrain inevitably express certain

sociopolitical attitudes that reflect a dominant

ideology.

SECOND: He opposes selective restriction of scientific

investigation because of what he calls the Error of

Futurism

THIRD: He argues that while partisans of selectiverestriction of scientific investigation express concern

over the socially disruptive effects of some research.


22/36

in fact societies need certain kinds of upheaval and renewal to stay

vital.

FOURTH: scientific orthodoxy is usually dictated by the state when its

leader fear that truths could undermine the power.

FIFTH: He prefers to characterized it, the imposition of orthodoxy of

science is the practical impossibility of stopping selected areas of

research.

Dr. Lewis Thomas

Is there something fundamentally unnatural things it has no need to

know

2 points about the quote:

First- it is to assume that doing what is alleged to be natural will always

turn out to be the best for the human spouses for the ecosystem as a

whole.

Second- human mind can rise above its ignorance by arrogantly asserting

that there are things it has no need to know

Baltimore with arguments against any form of societal limitation rely on

exaggeration and attribution and are not persuasive.

Society could adopt a general prescription in favor of scientific research.


23/36

Neglected Intangibles

The last obstacle to realizing

improved management of science andtechnology has to do with barriers toincorporating consideration ofcertain kind of intangibles:a

-Decision making regarding

controversial scientific andtechnological innovations.

A given innovation will definitelyyield direct, concrete, quantifiable

benefits (economic or medicalbenefits).Opponents often counter thatproceeding with the innovation ordevelopment in question may produce

serious costs.


24/36

Patterns which are indirect results ofthe proposed undertaking, intangible in

nature, nonquantifiable, andascertainable only in the long run:-vitro fertilization-nuclear power

-integrated computerized fileson citizensResponsibility-feasibility dilemma of

innovation-One of the problems which make suchdisputes difficult to resolve rationally.


25/36

The longer a conscientious decision

maker wishing to be sociallyresponsible holds off making adecision in order to ascertain a full

range of likely impacts, includingintangible ones, of the innovation ordevelopment at issue, the strongerthe body of evidence may become

weighing against approving orsupporting it.


26/36

Example:Suppose a firm petitioned the FDA to allow it tomarket an artificial womb that it claimed issuperior to the natural model; it is safer, thefirm says, and so advanced that fetuses can behoused in it directly after in vitro fertilization.Suppose further that the cognizant governmentdecision maker asked teams of governmentanalysts to develop the strongest cases for andagainst giving the firm permission to market thesystem. It is unlikely that a society as culturally

heterogeneous as that of US could bring itselfto decide to prohibit or rigorously restrict evensuch a controversial technological innovation.


27/36

Concrete benefits for theinnovation:1.) It will save fetuses that wouldotherwise die from uterine disordersof some would-be mothers.2.) It might well be less expensiveor more reliable than chemicalstimulation of pregnancy.3.) It would save the lives ofmothers who die in childbirth.4.) It would eliminate the healthproblems of babies of mothersaddicted to alcohol, drugs, or tobacco.5.) It would yield valuableknowledge of embryonic development,something likely to eventually payhandsome medical dividends.


28/36

(-)Negative1.) It might have long-term, spirituallydehumanizing effects on the sacredness of

life by rationalizing childbirth.2.) It might dilute mother-child bonding3.) Use of the device would be a cop-out,enabling individuals and society to avoidcoming to grips with the environmental andbehavioral problems that give rise to lesshealthy babies carried to term in utero.4.) If healthier children were in fact toresult from use of the artificial womb, thenaccess to it should not be limited solely tothose able to pay the going market price.


29/36

Problem lies in the :

diversity of world views, philosophical andreligious outlooks, and value and moral systems.Difficulty to achieve cultural consensus on thereality and importance of unquantifiableintangibles that could serve as a basis formoderating or rebuffing controversialinnovations or developments.

Unlike in certain relatively homogenous traditionalsocieties, such as those of the Yir Yoront and theHasidic Jewish community, there is no sharedsacred world view in the larger US society.


30/36

No shared world view that certifies

the reality and importance-promotespreservation- of intangibles like:CommunityCharacterI

ntimacySpiritHarmonySelf-respectT

ranquilityTreating someone like a personPreservation of valued aspectsof a threatened lifeway


31/36

Short of a technical innovations ordevelopmets seeming to pose aserious threat to public health,

military strength, or the economicwell-being of the politically influential,as that happened in the case of theAmerican SSTand as seems to behappening in the case of commercial

nuclear power, contemporaryAmerican society is quite unlikely torebuff any concrete-benefit-bestowing innovation.Friedrich Nietzsche: An

interpretation of existence thatpermits counting, calculating,weighing, seeing and touching, andnothing more- that is a crudity andnaivete, assuming that it is not amental illness, an idiocy.


32/36

3 broad, ideal-type evolutionary stages inthe relationship bet. Tech. innovations anddevelopments:

1.) Society in Stage 1 Its members share a sacred world view that

protects the status of certain valuedintangibles only by being inflexibly resistant toand categorically dismissive of significant,possibly beneficial changes with which it is

confronted. Let us call such societies singulartraditional cultures.Example: Case with the Yir Yoront and is stilllargely the case with the American Amish andHasidic Jewish people.


33/36

2.) Stage 2Members possess no shared intangible-

protecting world view that can be mobilized andused to rebuff admittedly beneficial technicalinnovations and developments on the horizon.Pluralist modern cultures.

3.) Stage 3

- Is a kind of Hegelian synthesis of itsantithetical predecessors. It has shown only faintsigns of emerging.A society in stage 3 resembles one in stage 1 that

is able to selectively reject or restrain benefit-bestowing innovations, even when they are noteconomically, militarily, or medially damaging tosociety.


34/36

It is like stage 2 in that its members subscribe to avariety of world views, but unlike it in that it is ableto be discriminating about technological innovationsand developments.Stage 3 societies discriminating sentinel cultures.The discriminating sentinel posture of stage 3attempts to navigate between undiscriminating andfor contemporary industrial societies, unworkableextremes:

- The categorical rejection oftechnical innovations characteristic of some statictraditional societies.

- The sometimes facile and unbridledscientific and technological optimism of moredeveloped industrial societies.


35/36

Conclusion:

A key challenge for industrialsocieties in the coming decades is totranscend the youthful, productive, butincreasingly dissipative and destructiveFaustian culture characteristic of the westduring the last 200 years and attain a moremature, discriminating and conserving sentinelculture.

Technical innovations and

developments would be assessed by societynot just in narrow economic, military, andmedical terms but also on the basis of theirlikely bearings on human spiritual and physicalhealth and well-being.


36/36

The end

Thank youfor

Listening

Documents

approaches to the study of science and technology and future