science, technology and society

1 | S c i e n c e , T e c h n o l o g y a n d S o c i e t y S a h i l A v i K a p o o r | 1 3 6

Science, Technology and Society

Final Assignment

Submitted to: Dr. Sreekumar Pillai

Sahil Avi Kapoor

PGP 1 (B)

20140121136


Introduction In the world that we know and see, science and technology is building inroads into

everyday life at breakneck speed. Technology today is omnipresent. It influences how

we think, communicate, work and play. Anybody who is uncomfortable, uninitiated or

unknowing about or with technology, is certainly a laggard, if not an absolute outcast.

While, everyone does agree that the main objective function of technology is to make

our tasks and life easier, there are umpteenth views on the many successes and failures

of technology as regards to this prima motive. With easy networking, come concerns

about privacy invasion. With readily available entertainment and information, comes

what is now called “infobesity”. While chores are easier to do, there’s constant stress and

anxiety as we try and push ourselves to multitask. All said at once, there is no doubt that

a lot of good and a lot of bad stems from scientific progress.

Thus, Science, as it matures affects humankind in newer ways every day. But does the

direction, method and intent behind this progression and maturity of human knowledge

also stem from societal undercurrents? Science affects life – Checked and Agreed. But

do cultures, norms, beliefs and prejudice also affect science? STS as a discipline tries

answering the very same question. It tries to correlate and examine the social contexts

and motivations behind the birth and the ever growing footprint of technology and

progress in the scientific arena. It tries to lay thread bare, the social hand behind science

through explorative, causal as well as descriptive research.

Through this essay, I sought to argue a very pertinent manifestation of societal impact on

scientific research studies – the role of power and position, held by a limited few, in

shaping and influencing the avatar of science available to us today. I ponder, raise

questions and try finding substantive answers behind the difference in the roles cut out

for traditional majors (the elite, the powerful and the privileged) versus the minors (the

masses, the tinkerers and the less influential) in the society, with respect to scientific

research studies, scientific explanations of natural phenomena as well as with its rendition

that we see in its application or usable technology.

The essay will borrow from and review the writings of Sismondo, S. (2010) – An Introduction

to Science and Technology. I shall primarily focus on the following chapters from the

same book.

Chapter 1: The Prehistory of Science and Technology Studies

Chapter 2: The Kuhnian Revolution

Chapter 4: Stratification and Discrimination

Chapter 5: The Strong Programme and the Sociology of Knowledge

Chapter 7: Feminist Epistemologies of Science


Scientific Progress – Is it controlled by the powerful? In Chapter 1, the author talks about the philosophical approach towards science as

adopted by the ‘logical positivists’, who believe that science is an inductive,

methodological process that converts observations and data into generalized theory.

The problem that I wish to highlight about the former, is the claim about there being

synonyms for every theory available. What’s interesting to note here is that these

synonyms or interpretations are more often than not influenced by the social motivations

and belief of the respective interpreters. And the significance of this problem is only

stressed further by the second problem with positivism, the claims that understanding

theories is only possible through the abstraction of meaning, which itself has to borrow

from inherent human intuitions. If interpretation has such a large role to play in the

induction process of science, isn’t it possible that it might be influenced, mended,

redesigned and altered by authority? Talking about the theory of ‘falsification’ that’s

talked about in the same chapter - The philosophy suggests that a viable method for

scientific progress is making bold predictions, and falsifying them if they can’t be

substantiated, while adopting them if they have feasible explanations. The question that

rises is the subjectivity of evaluation. Who are the ones who reject or accept theories?

What are the factors of rendering an explanation false or substantive? When evaluation

is dynamic and complex, how can it not be tinted with prejudice or pre-rationalization

by the powerful in the society? The third philosophy of realism says that science is

essentially a path towards truth. But then again, who decides and evaluates truth? In the

absence of any entity called ‘raw data’, how can the so called ‘truth’ be away from

cultural, political and economic adulteration?

The Kuhnian revolution talks about the absolute impossible assumption that progress of

human knowledge is a formal, steady process or ‘Whig’ history. Kuhn talked about

standardizations of research, technical language, models and tools that were produced

by scientists of a particular age and time. It was only when a new ‘paradigm’ or research

‘atmosphere’ transcended that stalwarts gave way to new ideas and personalities who

gave new dimensions to further progress. The criticism against Kuhn’s theory is based on

the availability of ‘boundary objects’ and ‘trading zones’ that made communication

and knowledge transfer possible between subsequent paradigms, thus moving Kuhn’s

theory to an insignificant space. The critics argue that the separation between

paradigms can’t be absolute in nature because there are obvious ways of

communication between different schools of thought. Here again, it is interesting to note

that boundary objects, trading zones and any other communication funnel is only

another privilege to a select few with notable networks extending across paradigms.

These privileged few then become the messengers of this information of models, theories,

tools and beliefs that they learn from the past. Isn’t it then up to these messengers to

selectively perceive, interpret and transmit this communication? And what is the

guarantee that these messengers aren’t politically aligned or motivated?


The chapter on stratification and discrimination hits the nail right on point. It highlights the

gross skew towards a select few, ‘elite’ authors and scientists when one talks of citations

in science publications. Borrowing figures from the text, “80% of all citations are to 20% of

all papers.” Moreover, the text also talks about the major ‘factory’ of papers and journals

also belongs to only a fraction of researchers. A staggering 50% of published papers are

produced by a measly 10% of scientists. In an extremely controversial observation,

Zuckerman also noted that most Nobel laureates are in fact students, assistants, mentees

or associates of past winners. Is there really a scientific ‘elite’ that exists? Viable

explanations rubbishing the elitism might reference high ranking institutes that play major

roles in sculpting tech heroes. The networks, intellectual stimulation, facilities, motivations

and rewards received at these select few institutions might be the reason for such

phenomenal results. Even if we do accept the argument, what about the clout that the

same institutes exercise over the evaluation of scientific ‘truth’ and its interpretation?

When funds for innovation as well as rewards for discovery are institutionalized, where is

the equity in opportunity for research?

Sismondo in the prescribed text also throws light on the ‘Strong Programme’ propounded

by Bloor. The programme emphasizes on four extremely controversial tenets. The first

tenet, much to the discomfort of scientists, of the time, states that social as well as several

other factors affect the shaping of science and its progress over the years. Bloor also

suggested that science must be evaluated with a common yardstick, and there

shouldn’t be asymmetry between the accepted (good science) and the ‘to be proved’

(bad science). Bloor through the tenets questioned the very raw ingenuity of ‘scientific

truth’. It was the Strong Programme that brought about the Science Wars, and that raised

scientists from their slumber. They were reminded that it is only obvious that there are

several political, economic, cultural, ideological factors behind their productions and it

must not be hidden from the world. In fact, it laid bare works of science to scrutiny and

thus, gave birth to a more responsible era of research.

The final chapter of the reading raises extremely valid questions about gender

discrimination in the area of scientific research, development and application. The

author wants us to ponder over the possibility of a different view point to natural truth if

women were given equal opportunities in the field. Research that we learn from and

build upon is hugely gendered in its essence, and these differences are over time shown

to be biological and hence normalized. The text in previous chapters also raises concern

over the unhealthy representation of the fairer sex in most scientific fields apart from life

sciences. The discrimination can be attributed to the deep sunken prejudice against girls

that lead to parents, peers, teachers and society discouraging them to take up science.

Maybe this is the reason why women are observed to hardly ever be first choices for

consultations, mentorship, discussions or study groups even while pursuing higher science

studies.


Yes it is. But is that a problem? All the examples, instances, debates and questions highlighted in the preceding section

lead us to an irrefutable observation – Scientific studies and theories are indeed

controlled and influenced by a very few privileged individuals, communities, societies or

countries. This is the reason that instances of researchers being influenced by the political

environment around them are aplenty. It is not unknown that Max Planck openly

opposed the Nazis’ indiscriminate dismissal of Jew research fellows and professors from

their positions. In more recent times, we see Obama over ruling the financial as well as

bureaucratic limits and check on stem cell research sanctioned by the government

under Bush. Obama’s bias towards funding of scientific efforts that create a clean and

green industry is also not unknown. Thus, the influence of politics towards how science

progresses absolutely alienates the possibility of an equitable distribution of resources,

mind space and opportunities between the powerful elite who are endorsed by either

the government or the corporates, and the ones who aren’t. With this observation

assumed to be conclusive, the next big question that faces us is whether the influence of

big governments and the rich corporations on science really harmful?

Talking first about political influence. The fact is that the separation of politics and science

is not truly separable and neither is it desired. What isn’t desired, though, is the ability and

intention of certain pockets of humanity to instrumentalize science for their personal

gains. At the same time, it also isn’t possible to let science progress without governmental

checks based on ethics as well as law. The most feasible outlook therefore is to seek and

foster a balance between freedom and regulation. Science without control might surely

be disastrous, but science bound by checks will also be hugely inefficient.

The challenge to the said balance is that we have assumed all governments to be

ethical, moral and well thinking themselves. What we must remember is that nuclear

missile arsenals are also technological advancements funded by governments around

the world. What about rogue governments?

The other overbearing influence over science is that of large financial corporations. The

enormous hazard posed by economic agendas of these organizations driving

technological research is a dangerous reality. The mad rush for getting discoveries

patented and the death of independent scholarship stems from the same reason. The

cases against pharmaceutical giants alleging misuse of patents to monopolize lifesaving

drugs is an example of how shamefully brazen and unabashedly leaning towards

financial gains, research has come to become. Again, it is the government that has to

play a major role in ensuring availability of science for all.

Here again lies an extremely potent challenge. If scientists are not allowed to patent far

reaching discoveries, for instance, a cure for AIDS, where is the reward? It is only ideal to

hope that scientists would work for the better of humankind, and it’ll be wonderful if they

do, but in reality all effort is driven by a motivation and lust for power and riches. Again,

the ‘right’ reward for such a discovery must be pondered over to overcome the

challenge. Moreover, if corporate interests and scientific research are separated, who


will fund technological change? Economic and market motivations are the base of

technological change and always have been. Technology that can be profitably sold is

always the one that’s funded, researched and developed.

Conclusion Political, corporate and social influences over technological and scientific

advancement are both essential as well as inevitable. The challenge lies in striking all the

right balances. Regulations and checks must be placed where required, but the invisible

hand of the market must be given its due share for it is the one that pushes and propels

the production of new technologies. At the same time, it is well known that governments

not always act in the best interest of science and humankind. Thus, scientists hold a huge

responsibility, like they have from time immemorial, of being hyper conscious and aware

of the socio political winds and act as stewards of science that shall take man forward.

They must preserve and shelter their work from ideological influences and free themselves

from political and corporate dependence as much as possible. The world needs a breed

of renaissance scientists – researchers who are well versed with (apart from their field of

scientific research) economy, politics and sociology and are equipped to deal with red

tape, bureaucracy and vested interests. Science must find a way to navigate and swim

across the political, economic and social agendas of the paradigm.


References 1. Mitzi (2008), ‘Influence of Technology on our Daily Lives’; Retrieved from

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Influence-Of-Technology-On-Our-Daily-

160936.html

2. University of Michigan Dearborn (2014), ‘What is STS?’; Retrieved from

http://umdearborn.edu/311001/

3. Ted Conversation Archives, ‘How immune should science be?’; Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/conversations/9090/how_immune_should_science_be_f.ht

ml

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Influence-Of-Technology-On-Our-Daily-160936.html

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Influence-Of-Technology-On-Our-Daily-160936.html

http://umdearborn.edu/311001/

http://www.ted.com/conversations/9090/how_immune_should_science_be_f.html

http://www.ted.com/conversations/9090/how_immune_should_science_be_f.html

science, technology and society

Documents