Do science and technology create value for society and the economy, and how might one go about measuring it? How do we evaluate its benefits? Can we even be certain that there are benefits? Geisler argues that there are benefits, and that they outweigh in value the negative impacts that inevitably accompany them. His revolutionary new book goes on to show that they can also be measured and evaluated, and in one volume all of the existing knowledge on how (...) to do it is complied--then Geisler's own methods are offered. The result is a compelling argument that the value of science and technology in our lives has indeed been positive, and that the economic well-being of all individuals, organizations, and nations rests upon them. Geisler starts off by describing his conceptual framework for the evaluation of science and technology and the impact and benefits that proceed from them. He discusses the nature of evaluation in general terms, and then in the specific context of science, technology, and innovation together. He reviews the state of our present knowledge and assesses the nature of value creation itself. Throughout, Geisler remains fixed on his driving thesis: Although there are certainly some negative impacts from science and technology, on the whole the results of its outputs are positive. He shows how they have contributed to a range of activities and institutions, particularly to the improvement of health and human welfare worldwide. Finally, after discussing the theories of evaluation, he gets down to the practice, providing readers with a way to assess science and technological innovations for themselves. (shrink)

Formal, informal and material institutions constitute the framework for human interaction and communicative practice. Three ideas from institutional theory are particularly relevant to technical change. Exclusion cost refers to the effort that must be expended to prevent others from usurping or interfering in one’s use or disposal of a given good or resource. Alienability refers to the ability to tangibly extricate a good or resource from one setting, making it available for exchange relations. Rivalry refers to the degree and (...) character of compatibility in various uses for goods. The paper closes with a note on how attention to these factors might be useful ways toconceptualize what Langdon Winner has called “the technological constitution of society,” and what Andrew Feenberg has theorized as “secondary rationalization,” as well as within more practical contexts of technical research, development and design. (shrink)

Read any newspaper or watch your television and as often as not you will be confronted by the worries, hopes, challenges, and mistakes of science and technology. Sociology has been trying to make sense of science for many years, while government and industry have promoted and exploited it for even longer. But what are science and technology? How have they been shaped by society? What new directions are they taking? Andrew Webster provides a lively and accessible introduction to (...) the sociological analysis of science and technology, exploring contemporary debates in a comprehensive and balanced fashion, and showing how the findings of sociologists of science relate to important issues of science policy and politics. Biotechnology and genetic engineering, technology transfer, feminist and radical critiques of science, "big science" projects, science parks and research within private industry are some of the topics that provide the focus for a wide-ranging, critical yet constructive sociological discussion. Science, Technology, and Society will be of particular value to students, academics, and practitioners involved in studying and helping to shape these two very powerful institutions of society. (shrink)

A reanalysis of selected national and state-level STS implementation data is reported in this article. The results indicate that teacher education, suitable curriculum materials, and insufficient class time are major issues affecting STS implementation in the United States. Only three states have addressed 50% or more of the STS implementation criteria in their science curriculum frameworks as recommended by the National Science Education Standards. A closer look at one state (Florida) revealed that approximately half of the school districts had STS (...) in science, nearly a third had it in social studies, and the majority of STS instruction occurred at the middle and secondary levels. Additionally, STS is often taught via environmental concerns, and as such, it may be skewed toward activist positions rather than analyzing all (positive and we negative) aspects of the impact of science and technology on society. Using the data as a base, implications are drawn for teacher education, the development of materials, and general policy concerns regarding STS. (shrink)

This book gathers inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary perspectives on the effects of today's advances in science and technology have on issues ranging from government policy-making to how we see the differences between men and women. The chapters investigate how invention and innovation really take place, how science differs from competing forms of knowledge, and how science and technology could contribute more to the greater good of humanity. For instance, should there be legal restrictions on 'immoral inventions'? A key theme (...) that runs throughout the book concerns who is taken into account at each stage and who is affected. The amount of influence users have on technology development and how non-users are factored in are evaluated as the impact of scientific and technological progression on society is investigated, including politics, economy, family life, and ethics. (shrink)

Assistive technology is widely used in contemporary special needs education. Our interest is in the extent to which we can conceive of certain uses of AT in this educational context as a form of extended cognition. It is argued that what is critical to answering this question is that the relationship between the student and the AT is more than just that of subject-and-instrument, but instead incorporates a fluidity and spontaneity that puts it on a functional par with their (...) use of the student’s biological cognitive traits. It is claimed that AT use in special needs education offers an especially plausible case of extended cognition for just this reason. It is further maintained that understanding AT in this fashion has some important philosophical and practical ramifications, including how we should conceive of mainstream education, given that this is increasingly conducted within highly technologically-embedded environments. (shrink)

Science policy mandates across the industrialized world insinuate more active roles for publics, their earlier participation in policy decisions, and expanded notions of science and technology governance. In response to these policies, engaged scholars in science studies have sought to design and conduct exercises aimed at better attuning science to its public contexts. As demand increases for innovative and potentially democratic forms of public engagement with science and technology, so also do the prospects for insights from science studies (...) to contribute to policy agendas and institutional capabilities. This collection brings together an international set of scholars in science, technology and society who inquire into the meaning, efficacy and responsibility of engaged science studies scholarship as a public matter. (shrink)

This book provides a comprehensive introduction to the human, social and economic aspects of science and technology. It examines a broad range of issues from a variety of perspectives, using examples and experiences from around the world. The authors present complex issues, including the responsibilities of scientists, ethical dilemmas and controversies, the Industrial Revolution, economic issues, public policy, and science and technology in developing countries. The book ends with a thoughtful and provocative look toward the future. It (...) features extensive guides to further reading, as well as a useful section on information searching skills. This book will provoke, engage, inform and stimulate thoughtful discussion about culture, society and science. Broad and interdisciplinary, it will be of considerable value to both students and teachers. (shrink)

Galileo and his fellowers discovered, and subsequent centuries have amply confirmed, that you get much better predictions by thinking of things as masses of particles blindly bumping each other than by thinking of them as Aristotle thought of them — animistically, teleologically, anthromorphically. They also discovered that you get a better handle on the universe by thinking of it as infinite and cold and comfortless than by thinking of it as finite, homey, planned, and relevant to human concerns. Finally, they (...) discovered that if you view planets or missiles or corpuscles as point-masses, you can get nice simple predictive laws by looking for nice simple mathematical ratios. These discoveres are the basis of modern technological civilization. We can hardly be too grateful for them. But they do not, pace Descartes and Kant, point any epistemological moral. (shrink)

Under conditions with a low level of available genetic information, mutualistic private insurance markets will often create broadly just outcomes, even if by accident rather than by design. Normatively acceptable outcomes of this kind would come under threat if insurers were to have increased access to genetic information with substantial predictive content.1 As the availability of relevant individual genetic information grows, mutualistic forms of market-based insurance face a dilemma between either sacrificing individuals’ interests in genetic privacy, or creating conditions for (...) market failure due to adverse selection. My view is therefore that we have good reason to shift towards more solidaristic forms of ‘risk-sharing institutions’ with regard to functions such as life insurance and critical illness insurance, as a way of resolving normative tensions between values of equality, privacy, non-discrimination and autonomy. Such a position, I have argued, does not depend on endorsing any particular conception of social justice, but can be defended on the basis of a number of different plausible accounts of what justice demands.1 Jonathan Pugh argues against my endorsement of a shift towards solidaristic, non-market risk-sharing institutions, and instead argues broadly in favour of the status quo. He holds that it counts against my proposals that they ‘have wide-ranging and highly revisionary implications’, and argues that my approach is mistaken in relying on ‘a single contestable theory’. Pugh offers a purportedly less contestable account of the relevant normative considerations underlying insurance regimes, composed of three …. (shrink)

For over 20 years, the concept of “food deserts” has served as an evocative metaphor, signifying spatialized patterns of injustice associated with low access to nutritious foods through retail and social exclusion. Yet in spite of its pithy appeal, scholars and activists increasingly critique the food desert concept as stigmatizing, inaccurate, and insufficient to characterize entrenched structural inequities. These well-founded critiques demonstrate a convincing need to reframe approaches to spatialized food injustice. We argue that food desert maps, which aim (...) to visually illustrate food inequality, can reproduce problematic assumptions, stigmas, and inaccuracies that form the crux of scholarly critiques. For example, food desert maps typically overlook community assets and also utilize decontextualized and overdetermined indicators, such as proximity to supermarkets and transportation access. Although we acknowledge the contributions of food desert maps, in this paper we propose a reimagining of food access mapping. To illustrate our argument, we present a course-based food justice mapping study in Providence, Rhode Island. Our project draws inspiration from studies that interrogate the deficit-oriented framing of food deserts, as well as several alternative mapping practices: critical cartography and counter-mapping, community asset mapping, participatory geographic information systems, and radical cartography. We suggest these alternative mapping approaches have potential to move practitioners and viewers beyond the desolate “desert” vantage point and toward a more textured understanding of community food access that inspires engaged exploration. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: References and Further Reading.

I argue that law is best understood as an institutionalized abstract artifact. Using the ideas of John Searle on institutions and Amie Thomasson on artifacts, I show how the law is capable of generating new reasons for action, arguing against recent work by David Enoch who holds that legal reason-giving is ultimately a form of triggering conditional reasons.

Why do many postpositivists caricature contemporary social science? Why make incorrect claims, for instance about social scientists avoiding values? Why discuss features that often no longer matter, such as seeking laws or predictions? Why reject extreme forms of social science without discussing more sensible forms? Why say little or nothing about scientific methodology, which is a great strength of recent social science? To explain such oversights and caricatures, philosophical analysis will not suffice. These are not isolated (...) intellectual errors, but systematic ones, made by numerous scholars and fostered by social practices and institutional conventions. We thus need ideological analysis, which specializes in explaining institutionalized systems of belief. Speculative explanations are offered for postpositivist caricatures, including not only psychological factors, but also external ones (for example, the arrogance of many social scientists), limitations of language (for example, the ambiguity of the term ‘methodology’), rhetorical strategies (for example, genealogical approaches), and conventions (for example, bad citation practices). (shrink)

The empirical circumstances in which human beings ascribe responsibility to one another are subject to change. Science and technology play a great part in this transformation process. Therefore, it is important for us to rethink the idea, the role and the normative standards behind responsibility in a world that is constantly changing under the influence of scientific and technological progress. This volume is a contribution to that joint societal effort.

Don Ihde, contemporary postphenomenological philosopher of science and technology--technoscience--examines the important philosophical role of Husserl, here in relation to technologies, and his classical phenomenology. With concrete analyses of both the science of Husserl's time and a retrospective reading from new technoscience interpretations, scientific instruments, technologies of reading and writing, and new imaging technologies are discussed.

This chapter contains sections titled: References and Further Reading.

I argue that Habermas’ critique of Nietzsche overlooks the similarities between his conception of an emancipatory social science and Nietzsche’s conception of genealogy. I conclude that it is necessary to disagree with Habermas’ contention that with Nietzsche the critique of modernity abandons its emancipatory content.

The author proposes and discusses the following thesis: That which determines the intensifying process of transition toward an entirely new situation on the globe is, to an ever increasing degree, consciousness, the self-knowledge of cultures, and above all philosophies as their most profound expression. The author considers this transition the growth of the universalism he interprets as a philosophy of mankind-for-itself. The considerations extensively refers to Kinhide Mushakoji’s conception of scientific revolution and inter-paradigmatic dialogue.

In the paper, prior research is criticized for giving privileged position to individual-level managerial characteristics in explaining differences in firm-level socialand political activity. Recognizing cultural differences between firms is offered as a partial solution for improving our understanding. Cultural Theory from anthropology and political science is cited as a guiding framework for fruitful future inquiry.

Much of what once was praised as scientific and technological progress has shown itself to be in conflict with the world, the world man has inherited, that we hold in trust.

Technological innovations and scientific discoveries do not occur in a vacuum but instead leave us needing to reimagine what we thought we knew about the human condition.

The prehistory of science and technology studies -- The Kuhnian revolution -- Questioning functionalism in the sociology of science -- Stratification and discrimination -- The strong programme and the sociology of knowledge -- The social construction of scientific and technical realities -- Feminist epistemologies of science -- Actor-network theory -- Two questions concerning technology -- Studying laboratories -- Controversies -- Standardization and objectivity -- Rhetoric and discourse -- The unnaturalness of science and technology -- The public (...) understanding of science -- Expertise and public participation -- Political economies of knowledge. (shrink)

Analytic social ontology has been dominated by approaches where institutions tend to come out paradigmatically as being relatively harmonious and mutually beneficial. This can however raise worries about such models potentially playing an ideological role in conceptualizing certain politically charged features of our societies as marginal phenomena or not even being institutional matters at all. This article seeks to develop a nonideal theory of institutions, which neither assumes that institutions are beneficial or oppressive, and where ideology is understood as (...) a structuring and stabilizing phenomenon that helps maintain specific distributions of rights and duties by conferring perceived legitimacy onto them. (shrink)

This paper sets out Peter Winch's central ideas about the nature of the social sciences, and reappraises their potential for educational research. It is argued that the dichotomy between ‘reasons’ and ‘causes’ has done much harm, and that the important matter of understanding ‘what is real for us’ has recently been neglected. Winch's philosophy suggests a more adequate framework for educational research: one that embraces a pluralistic interpretive position, accommodating various methods and various kinds of understanding of the (...) social, and that views educational science as involving opportunity for reflection and a degree of distance from the world of practice, yet at the same time as essentially part of the political debate about education. (shrink)

Introduction -- Cultural theories of people -- Identities in standard English -- Language and social institutions -- The cultural self -- The self's identities -- Theories of identities and selves -- Theories of norms and institutions -- Social reality and human subjectivity.

The technological sciences have at least six defining characteristics that distinguish them from the other sciences. They have human-made rather than natural objects as their study objects, include the practice of engineering design, define their study objects in functional terms, evaluate these study objects with category-specified value statements, employ less far-reaching idealizations than the natural sciences, and do not need an exact mathematical solution when a sufficiently close approximation is available. In combination, the six characteristics are sufficient (...) to show that the technological sciences are neither branches nor applications of the natural sciences, but form a different group of sciences with specific characteristics of their own.Keywords: Technological sciences; Technology; Functional concepts; Idealization; Design. (shrink)

The discourses of agricultural extension reveal how actors represent their scientific activities and goals. The “transfer of technology” discourse developed with the professional U.S. extension service, reproducing its expert/lay power relations. Agroecology is emerging as a systems approach to preventing agricultural pollution. Its theoreticians argue that agroecology cannot be transferred like technology but must be extended through networks of participatory social learning. In California, hundreds of actors and dozens of institutions have cocreated agroecological partnerships using this alternative (...) extension model. They have developed three alternative extension discourses to represent and explain their activities. Bruno Latour's “circulatory system of science” model provides a superior theoretical framework for interpreting the participation and discourses of diverse actors in this extension practice. (shrink)

This text illuminates the relevance and importance of Heidegger’s thought today. The chapters address the modern living conditions of intense social transformation intertwined with the continuous and rapid development of technologies that redefine the borders between nations and cultures. Technology globalizes markets, customs, the exchange of information, and economic flows but also – as Heidegger reminds us – revolutionizes the way we relate to bodies, to life, and to earth, by way of introducing both unprecedented opportunities and great (...) dangers. (shrink)

An emerging view of science rejects an infallible observational given and takes consensus as the starting point for confirmation. Theory and Observation are seen as mutually correcting. I argue that the same is true of ethics, such as Rawls' "reflective equilibrium." Though epistemologically similar, their truth conditions may differ. Ethics may be reducible to physics; but even if it is not, that does not imply that it has no truth conditions. The options for truth in ethics are the same as (...) those of other abstract fields such as mathematics. (shrink)

The argument that recent attempts to model technology studies on science studies have consequences for approaches to science studies as well is presented. In particular, the move to technology studies through science studies counts against the existing extreme pictures of science, "enlightenment rationalism," and "constructivisim," which are identified with modernism and postmodernism, respectively. Some components for a moderate "enlightened post-modern synthesis" in naturalism, interest theory, and systems theory are found.

How can governments and peoples better hold to account international economic institutions, such as the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF? This article proposes an approach based on public accountability, advocating improvements in four areas: constitutional, political, financial, and internal accountability.The argument for more accountability is made with two caveats: more accountability is not always good–it can be distorting and costly; and, enhancing the accountability of international institutions should not justify increasing their jurisdiction for the sake of reducing the (...) role of national governments. Constitutional accountability poses limits on how the institutions expand their activities, requiring the active consent of all members and particularly those most affected by their activities. Political accountability requires that those who make decisions in the organizations are directly answerable to all member governments and not just to the most powerful ones. The institutions' uneven record and structure of financial accountability is addressed through a model of mutual restraint. Finally, the internal accountability should ensure that technical decisions are distinguishable from political decisions. A better matching of the right kinds of accountability to the activities of the organizations would improve both their effectiveness and legitimacy. (shrink)

Mesoudi et al.'s case can be improved by expanding to compelling selectionist explanations elsewhere in the social sciences and by seeing that natural selection is an instance of general selectionist process. Obstacles include the common use of extreme idealizations and optimality evidence, the copresence of nonselectionist social processes, and the fact that selectionist explanations often presuppose other kinds of social explanations. (Published Online November 9 2006).

Introduction -- Repression, ignorance, and undone science -- The epistemic dimension of the political opportunity structure -- The politics of meaning: from frames to design conflicts -- The organizational forms of counterpublic knowledge -- Institutional change, industrial transitions, and regime resistance politics -- Contemporary change: liberalization and epistemic modernization -- Conclusion.

This chapter contains sections titled: References and Further Reading.

Science breaks new trails for technology but social science has yet to break new trails for social technology. Why is this? One hypothesis explains this with reference to the complexity of the social world and the still rudimentary nature of the social sciences. This paper argues for an alternative hypothesis, claiming that social science research is incapable of generating technologies not already part of the human repertoire. Drawing on a range of (...) class='Hi'>social science inquiry from economics to psychology, it shows that the ?mechanisms? posited to explain normal and puzzling human behavior depend on familiar facts about humans which future investigations cannot overturn. Finally, it is shown that even when these familiar facts are themselves explained, the generative mechanisms posited to account for them are no longer within the sphere of the social sciences. (shrink)

Technologies cannot simply be understood as neutral tools or instruments; they embody the values of their creators and may unconsciously reinforce systematic patterns of inequality, discrimination, and oppression. -/- Technology Ethics shows how responsible innovation can be achieved. Demonstrating how design and philosophy converge, the book delves into the intricate narratives that shape our understanding of technology – from instrumentalist views to social constructivism. Yet, at its core, it champions interactionalism as the most promising and responsible narrative. (...) Through compelling examples and actionable tools, this book unravels the nuances of these philosophical positions tailored to foster responsible innovation and thoughtful design. As our everyday lives further intertwine with technology, understanding and implementing these design principles becomes not just beneficial, but essential. -/- This concise and accessible introduction is essential reading for students and scholars of philosophy of technology, engineering ethics, science and technology studies, human-machine communication, as well as policymakers. (shrink)

Hayek's case for the limits of economic agents’ knowledge does not, as Greg Hill seems to suggest, imply that government should be in the business of engaging in countercyclical fiscal policy or paternalistic corrections of people's pursuit of “imaginary goods.” In the latter case, markets have corrective learning mechanisms for consumer mistakes. In the former, public‐choice and public‐ignorance problems plague government efforts to correct the business cycle. The problem of public ignorance is, in turn, Jeffrey Friedman's topic, but he is (...) unfair in condemning Hayek's abandonment of this problem in order to develop his thesis that a “planning mentality” was the source of the leftist ideas with which Hayek disagreed. Hayek was confronted by widely popular planning schemes that were endorsed by a great many of his colleagues, who were not ignorant of economics. (shrink)

1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is to present an initial sociological analysis of science as an institution. This kind of analysis has long been made of other aspects of culture: of the family, the state, religion, economic enterprise and the like. An institution, as the term is used here, is simply… a definite and established phase of the public mind … often seeming, on account of its permanence and the visible customs and symbols in which it is clothed, (...) to have a somewhat distinct and independent existence. (shrink)

Social scientists operate in a range of roles within the public engagement with science and technology agenda. Social scientists’ strengths in respect to “translation” and “intermediary” skills have captured attention at a time of disciplinary pressure to demonstrate impact. This article explores how social scientists’ engaged in public engagement with science and technology consider their role(s), drawing on 21 semistructured interviews and Horst and Michael’s proposals of an emergence model, in addition to ongoing discussions related (...) to expertise. The findings suggest there are many benefits when social scientists engage with “strangers,” both scientific and public, but that focusing only on pragmatic elements misses the true opportunity such working relationships can offer among critical friends. (shrink)