Science and Technology - The Relationship Between Science and Technology in the Modern World
Have you seen one of the latest phone technology/development, Project Ara yet? It is incredible, even the high level of customisation to meet the needs of the individual users and a rather low cost for it.
Science and Technology has always been making lives easier and more efficient. Science is knowledge. It is the discovery of a world that already exist. Technology is the application of this knowledge, the creation of a world that doesn’t.
What is interesting is that science, being merely the discovery of the world that already exists, is often not controversial. It is, rather, the application of these scientific knowledge (ie technology) which often goes against our initial beliefs, resulting in a controversy,
In my previous post, I mentioned about how our lenses shape our view/opinion on issues. Likewise, our beliefs are shaped by our lenses as well. When presented with new facts that we have never came across which are against from our initial beliefs, a internal controversy occurs. There are 2 ways in which you can respond to them: (1) Ignore/Resist (2) Change your Beliefs.
For example, being a devout Christian, you are one who place huge emphasis on the “community” lens. When new technology like genetic engineering is possible, it challenges your initial belief of whether us, as humans, should even tamper with genes and DNA. This causes an internal controversy within you. You have 2 options: Continue to place great emphasis on your “community” lens and resist the technology or to concede the importance of genetic engineering (medical treatment, etc) and alter your belief.
There is no right or wrong answers and we have to respect how we, as individuals who have their own experiences, values, etc, are able to make that judgement on our own and not impose our own beliefs on others.
Moving on, we need to understand that technology is human-centric; it takes the shape of the creator. It mirrors, augment or magnifies human life/activities. The science behind each technological application is neutral. It is mere knowledge of the world that has already exist. However, the intention of the people who uses this knowledge for whatever application differs, resulting in technological applications which may be useful or harmful.
This is Mr Tong’s famous “Function + Context = Value”
Many argue how technology has brought us new problems of bigger scale, such as how invention of weapons (bioweapons, cyberwarfare, etc) had led to more harm than good. How genetic engineering/(stem cells, cloning, etc) is a move in a wrong direction. But if you take a step back and see these issues in totality, You would realise that technology actually just amplifies existing human issues. The reason behind all the bioweapons, cyber attacks, weapons, etc is due to conflict, which is a human issue. Invention of methods for genetic engineering is a technological response to our fundamental desire to survive and, well, be better than others (survival of the fittest).
Technological impacts are just manifestations of existing human issues.
As such, we have to answer 3 broad issues behind Science and Technology:
As aforementioned, the scientific knowledge is essentially neutral as it is the discovery of what already exist. However, the application (technology) is not as it is created on the basis of these scientific knowledge by humans, who have intentions.
Bringing back the formula:Function + Context = Value, we are able to apply this to real-world incidents. Of course under the hands of well-intentioned individuals, science and technology seek to improve the efficiency and convenience of others. Problems occur when ill-intentioned ones misuse them, leading to more harm than good.
An example would include how genetic engineering can be a medical treatment for fatal diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, which may not have a cure. However, in the wrong hands, people like Josef Mengele aka “Angel of Death” may misuse the knowledge for their own ill-intentions.
Josef Mengele is a concentration camp officer/physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War 2. Some of his grotesque experiments include: “attempts to change eye color by injecting chemicals into the eyes of living subjects and killing people with heterochromatic eyes so that the eyes could be removed and sent to Berlin for study.”, “sought[ing] out pregnant women, on whom he would perform experiments before sending them to the gas chambers and conjoining of twins.
Because of unregulated, ill-intentions of individuals who may not use science and technology for good, more harm than good will occur.
Secondly, like most items that you see around you, S&T is usually driven by market forces. Meaning this:
There are, of course, tremendous merit in allowing S&T to be driven by market forces. With demand, comes supply by the companies, thus there will be science and technological advancements. The money serves as an incentive for producers to produce, in this case, science and technology which is all beneficial in the long run as it makes society more efficient and comfortable.
The problem comes when there is no incentive to produce necessary products such as medical treatments because the groups demanding these products simply have no ability to pay.
One example is the Guinea-worm disease:
“The adult female, which carries about 3 million embryos, can measure 600 to 800 mm in length and 2 mm in diameter. The parasite migrates through the victim's subcutaneous tissues causing severe pain especially when it occurs in the joints. The worm eventually emerges (from the feet in most of the cases), causing an intensely painful oedema, a blister and an ulcer accompanied by fever, nausea and vomiting.
Infected persons try to relieve the burning sensation by immersing the infected part of their body in local water sources, usually ponds water. This also induces a contraction of the female worm at the base of the ulcer causing the sudden expulsion of hundreds of thousands of first stage larvae into the water.
No drug is available to prevent or heal this parasitic disease – exclusively associated with drinking contaminated water. Dracunculiasis is, however, relatively easy to eliminate and eventually eradicate.
Temporary disability can leave many patients unable to leave their beds for a month during and after the emergence of the worm. This usually occurs during the peak agricultural activities and when labour is in a great demand.”
It is rather outrageous is know that there is indeed a simple solution: clean water. However, because these rural areas do not have the necessary purchasing power to buy “clean water”, it is not produced for them.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have numerous examples of how so much money is invested in improving treatments for seemingly trivial issues, such as laser hair removal, which is a $1.8 billion dollar industry in the US.
The rich basically steers where the scientific advancements are headed to because it is lucrative for companies to do so. Due to the same reason, products required for the poorer areas are not provided, unless government intervenes and provides for them.
As such, because S&T is mainly driven by market forces, it is inequitable and is thus biased against those who are unable to pay.
2) Should it redefine humans/society?
As mentioned through the brain diagrams, there are 2 ways in which you can respond towards new facts/information: Ignore/resist or accept. Over the years, you may have realised that the general consensus is getting more and more receptive towards it.
a) Usage of Media to Change Perception
Our reception towards S&T has been improving over the years. More controversial topics such as genetically engineering have been more accepted by the public for its success, which are widely broadcasted through the media. As mentioned, most of the S&T development are driven by market forces. As such, to obtain more consumer funding, companies usually tap on the media to alter and improve the perception of the public.
Take Ligers for example: it is a new species created via genetic engineering between a lion and a tiger. Our current perception of a liger is a rather positive one; it being the “biggest cat in the world” has surreptitiously influenced our subconscious into thinking and accepting the fact that genetic engineering can be safe and cause an improvement, a creation of something better and stronger.
In 2008, the first “American Glow In the Dark” cat was introduced on American television. Do take some time to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyKt7Rr5Y88
It is interesting to know that the nature of the whole video is light-hearted and fun, with the introduction being “Meow meow meow meow” and laughter at the background. This somehow lightens the mood of an otherwise rather controversial topic such as genetic engineering. It is a glow in the dark cat. GLOW IN THE DARK CAT. Its genes had been tampered with just so that the cat can GLOW. Of course everyone has their own opinions, but I am one who thinks that the whole portrayal of a much needed debate regarding such an important topic is wrong altogether.
But from the companies’ point of view, it is indeed necessary for them to be more receptive towards genetic engineering, because ultimately, consumer funding is important.
b) Amish and Neo-Luddites
On the other hand, there are people who are resistant to S&T altogether. The Amish is a group of people who resists technology for religious reasons. They believe in living the natural way and living outside would have a morally polluting effect on them.
Luddites were people who disliked the spread of machinery during the Industrial Revolution to accomplish tasks which were formerly performed by people. They held marches, destroyed factories, and engaged in other types of activism in an attempt to prevent further technological development.
Since 1970s, some people revived the concept, calling themselves the "New Luddites," and the Neo-Luddite movement was born. They share a similar distrust or wariness of technology, especially the role of corporate profit, rather than human need, in propelling technological change. Some Neo-Luddites are also opponents of globalization for the same reasons.Most people would not argue with the Neo-Luddite idea that technology is changing human society, and sometimes even shifting what it means to be human. Stopping to think about the effect of technology on society is the main goal of many Neo-Luddites, some of whom freely admit that some technology can be very beneficial. - Credits to Wisegeek.com
3) Who should be responsible for regulating these technological changes?
Being an issue of a rather big scale, many naturally look at governments to intervene this market. However, there are of course limitations and considerations that the government must account for.
a) Preemptive, Flexible Legislation
Given the evolving nature of the market, there is a need for preemptive legislation. By foreseeing the future problems that may arise, laws should be created to curb and set the parameters of what is legal and what is not. In 2012, the US tried to implement the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), but failed when it received hundreds of thousands of emails and signatures in online petitions, reflecting the ineffectiveness of late implementation of measure. Moreover, there is also a need for frequent reassessment of the laws so that they can be changed according to fit the context of the intended outcome, even the constant changes in the field.
b) Tension of Market Forces
Countries can also be seen operating like a firm. The amount of revenue can be affected by many factors, one of which is state restrictions. A more relaxed state law regarding a field of science research may lead to an inflow of investments and attraction of foreign talent. Countries who have restrictions tend to lose out, thus reducing their own countries’ economic growth. There is, hence, competition among countries to compete for these investments. However, there is, of course, the moral struggle that comes with relaxation of state laws for controversial scientific research. Take Singapore for example. Singapore is the most liberal country in Asia in terms of embryonic stem cell research. Government had encouraged influx of investments and foreign talent in these fields when most countries have banned these research on moral grounds. Singapore has invested in equipment and facilities such as the Biopolis to cater for such needs. In 2004, Singapore had allowed stem cell research while other countries such as Australia and US banned them on moral grounds. However, countries started to follow suit and lift bans regarding these research, despite their politicians raising ethical concerns (Australia in 2006, US in 2009). We need to realise that S&T is a gigantic market that promises great revenue. Investors in these field would simply invest somewhere else, where state legislations are more relaxed, escaping the restrictions of government regulation. Hence, countries have to prioritise and weigh and pros and cons of it, taking account for the competition among the countries and also the ethical concerns that may arise as well.
Taking a big step back, we need to understand that scientists now do not exist as an individual. In fact, they exist as a corporation; there is always a profit margin. As such, these corporations will produce what consumers want. Consumers are the ones who drive the market forces. While independent watchdogs, government legislative bodies and international regulatory bodies should play their role in ensuring that the concerns of leaving S&T to the free market are being met, the most powerful influence on the market is ultimately us, the consumers.
Because after all, technology is human-centric.