April 8, 2014: The Need for Better Governance of Technology

Whistleblowers put their lives and the lives of their families at risk to bring attention to concerns pertinent to the well-being of the public. If a governing body for technology existed, then it is possible that the severity of consequences behind whistleblowing could be mitigated. This governing body could manifest out of the multitude of already existing science advisory boards and committees dedicated to understanding the progress of technological development.

A governing body could provide a place for whistleblowers to go to directly to express their claims and provide evidence for their concerns without being reprimanded. As it stands, people that have the courage to face their superiors and admit knowledge of a(n) error/defect/consequence that could potentially embarrass the entire company put themselves in a weak position within the company. More frequently than not, the courageous employee is encouraged to forget about what they know, like in the case of Michael DeKort, project manager for the Deepwater Project at Lockheed Martin (Greenwald, 2013). After this point, employees that still feel they have a responsibility to report the information they discovered usually face legal charges and allegations from the company they're exposing, such as Franz Gayl in his attempt to demonstrate the need for more robust military vehicles than the Humvee (Greenwald, 2013). With such severe repercussions for blowing the whistle on large corporations, it's no wonder that engineers and scientists generally keep their heads down and simply continue on with their work. Like Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". Having a governing body as the middleman to assist the employee could help provide more credibility to the employee's claim as well as provide protection for the employee against the company/institution they're exposing.

When investigating the ethical and societal impacts of nanotechnology, nuclear technology, and agribusiness, one comes across plenty of organizations recommending against the use of certain technologies, however no organizations or boards actually possess the power to bring action or consequence if companies/separate entities decide to act of their own accord. For example with nanotechnology, "only a handful of toxicological studies exist on engineered nanoparticles, but it appears that nanoparticles as a class are more toxic than versions of the same compound because of their mobility and increased reactivity" (Etcgroup, p. 13). Yet the same article states that the government and scientists only admitting after great hesitations the unique risks caused by nano-scale particles. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering released a statement saying "Until more is known about their environmental impact we are keen that the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes in the environment is avoided as far as possible. Specifically we recommend as a precautionary measure that factories and research laboratories treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they were hazardous waste streams and that the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited" (Etcgroup, p. 15). Despite the statements made by several committees and advisory boards, there is no entity that can exercise power over a company/institution for disregarding these recommendations or warnings. This ought to be remedied to provide better protection for society against large corporations that are wield too much freedom and power without restriction.

While whistleblowers are appreciated and are important to the protection of the general public against the unethical and harmful decisions of large corporations, there ought to be a better system in place to assist these employees and punish offending companies/institutions. Without a governing body for technology, companies can continue to act far beyond what is ethical/socially acceptable since it usually takes a significant allotment of time to realize that they have done something wrong. With a governing body for technology existing to protect the employees that have the courage to do the right thing, more engineers and scientists may be encouraged to stand up for what is right and voice their concerns when they see something going wrong.

References

ETC Group. "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies and 'The Little Bang Theory'". ETC Group. June 2005. Web. 4 April 2014.

War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Dir. Robert Greenwald. Brave New Foundation, 2013. Film. 

April 4, 2014: The Privileged Position of Science

As science and technology shrinks in scale and increases in complexity, a question is raised as to who really benefits from these high-tech advancements. The history of technology waves would suggest that major new technologies initially demean marginalized people and allow the wealthy to anticipate, manipulate, and prosper from technological bursts (Etcgroup, pg. 4). The reason for this is because people with financial means are able to sustain themselves, regardless of the success of the technological advancement, while the rest suffer. Nanotechnology and technological convergence in particular has the potential to bring about staggering societal effects and raise serious threats to human rights and our democracy. Technological convergence is defined as derivation of fundamental building blocks of all sciences from nano-engineered materials. The utilization of complex technology, such as nanotechnology, is inherently inclined to satisfy the rich and leave everyone else helpless.

Economically, nanotechnology has the ability to "topple commodity markets, disrupt trade and the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable workers who do not have the economic flexibility to respond to sudden demands for new skills or different raw materials" (Etcgroup, pg. 4). As mentioned in "The Accountability of Science and Engineering", though developments in technology have the ability to provide for and benefit the less fortunate, this is accomplished by destroying all competitors that are unable to financially support newer, more expensive machinery, laborers of higher skill level, and any other products needed to sustain the facility.

Furthermore, if the new nano-engineered material can be produced at a lower cost and outperform a conventional material, it is reasonable to expect that the nanomaterial will replace the conventional commodity (Etcgroup, pg. 4). This monopolizes the industry and gives an excess of power to those that have the resources to manipulate and create those nano-engineered materials. As raw materials are broken down to the nano-scale, a convergence of diverse technologies becomes possible. "As the Wall St. Journal puts it, 'companies that hold pioneering patents could potentially put up tolls on entire industries" (Etcgroup, pg. 7). The livelihoods of manual laborers and their families in our own country in addition to third world countries that provide us with raw materials would be put in jeopardy with the ability to simply spawn materials with nano-materials.

A long term goal of the US government is to eventually improve human performance in all aspects of daily life. If this aspiration is achieved, then the government risks the exacerbation of the already increasing rift between those who will be "improved" through technological convergence and those who will be left "unimproved" either by choice or lack of choice (Etcgroup, pg. 9). It is at this point that scientists, engineers, and political powers must seriously address who really benefits from extreme advancements of technology and whether those lives are worth more than the ones left behind.

References

ETC Group. "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies and 'The Little Bang Theory'". ETC Group. June 2005. Web. 4 April 2014. 

April 1, 2014: The Politics behind Technological Development

Politics can be defined as occurring wherever authority is exercised in ways that have great impact on public well-being. "Because engineering systematically and authoritatively reshapes the everyday material world, and thereby helps shape ways of life for billions of people, engineering is in some respects as important a political arena as electoral politics and representative government" (Woodhouse, p. 147). Sometimes the implementation of simple technologies, such as overpasses and private pools, can have strong political and social connotations that consequently provoke the public well-being. This then suggests that certain facets of non-governmental life, such as science and engineering, have a political element that should not be overlooked.

Technologies authoritatively help determine who gets what, when, and how, just as politics is characterized as the struggle for who gets what, when, and how (Woodhouse, p.148-150). Robert Moses, a prominent figure in the building of New York City's infrastructure, demonstrated the power of technology by the suggestive nature of the low overpasses constructed during the mid-twentieth century. Moses deliberately designed hundreds of overpasses to have a low clearance, which happens to be smaller than would allow a standardized public bus. (Ibo, p. 199).  Although the reasons for this design specification have been debated since Langdon Winner's article, "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Winner proposed that the motivation was to prevent the lower classes taking public transportation from having access to the public beaches. Biographer, Robert Caro, admitted that Moses demonstrated racial tendencies and pointed out that due to the specifications of these structures, "only people would could afford a car - and in Moses' days these were generally not Afro-American people - could easily access the beaches now" (Ibo, p. 199). Though Moses' intent for these overpasses have been doubted and debated, this example still demonstrates that people with the ability to influence the implementation of technology can do so with aspirations to induce social, and thus political, change.

The history behind the progression towards private pools, which are quite popular in the United States, illustrates the use of technology to influence social movements. Originally, municipal pools existed to keep the disgraceful youth, poor, and immigrants in a closed location, hidden from the public. These pools were used primarily for bathing, however after World War I, pools became a place for enjoyment and relaxation. Where initially pool usage was specific to just men or women on different days of the week, families were then encouraged to come as a whole to enjoy the water together. However, from this integration sprouted animosity and discrimination, as white people became very concerned that "the sexual atmosphere at a pool might promote racial mixing" (NPR, 2007). Following this point, pools were then racially segregated instead of by gender. Eventually, municipal pools were desegregated once more, however in retaliation white people began building private pools to enjoy swimming in their own space. In this example, the development of technology gave the people the power to induce social and political change as "Americans fought over where pools should be built, who should be allowed to use them, and how they should be used" (NPR, 2007).

Innovations in manufacturing, communication, and transportation technologies lead to fundamental changes in daily life every bit as significant as the effects of government legislation (Woodhouse, p.151). The implementation of technologies such as the overpass and private pools suggest that technological developments give people in control significant influence over social structure, and therefore politics. One must wonder that with the changes provoked by just these simple technologies, how much power and influence is given to those in control of more advanced science and engineering.

References

Plunging into Public Pools’ Contentious Past. NPR. 26 May 2007. Web. 1 April 2014.

van de Poel, Ibo; Royakkers, Lamber. Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Web. 31 March 2014.

Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109.1 (1980): 121-136. Web. 1 April 2014.

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

March 28, 2014: The Accountability of Science and Engineering

With the exciting advancements in modern technology opening doors to greater scientific and engineering opportunities, it's easy for one to get lost in the research and development and forget about how that work is actually being applied to society. "Many biology students these days see the genetic engineering of existing life forms and the creation of new ones as the cutting edge of the field. Whether they are competing in science fairs or carrying out experiments, they have little time for debate surrounding dual-use research; they are simply plowing ahead" (Garrett, p. 36-37). What these biology students overlook is the significant economic, social, and political impact that their research can have on the world. Scientists and engineers ought to be more aware and practice more responsibility in order to maintain an ethical and progressive mindset in their work environments, where progressive is defined as making progress toward better conditions. Only this way can technologists hope to direct (or redirect) their research and protect against 'dual-use research of concern' (DURC) or unethical practices.

As mentioned by Garrett above, practitioners of science and engineering become blinded by the cutting edge of technology and willingly submit to the veil of ignorance placed over them by their employers. As a result, these practitioners never question the application of their work once it leaves their lab, they simply move on to the next task. Martha Crouch was the lead of a research team in plant molecular biology when she realized the veil of ignorance that covered the eyes of her colleagues. This discovery motivated her to uncover the effect her research had on society, only to discover that botanical research is as disruptive to social and ecological systems as any human practice yet devised, including war (Crouch, 1991). Research such as high-yielding crops do not necessarily solve world hunger, but rather create more opportunities for bankers and multinational corporations to grow and prosper. High-yielding crops require certain kinds of plantations, which must be maintained by specialized skilled labor and use specific fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that only wealthy farmers can afford. She realized that the way she was applying her passion for nature was actually undercutting Third World economies through the production of more uniform oil plants. She has since cut ties with her previous employers to raise awareness on her concerns regarding the use of her work and technology to harm others. Her efforts to bring her misguided/misapplied research to the attention of other scientists actually yielded a great deal of feedback, which demonstrates the magnitude of people in technological positions that have chosen to hide behind the veil and wait for a whistleblower to save them.

History has shown accounts in which whistleblowers were not present to prevent drastic misuse of technology. These include Fritz Haber's discovery on how to mass-produce ammonia as well as Einstein's revolutionary theories of relativity, gravity, mass, and energy (Garrett, p. 31-32). Haber's research eventually contributed to the creation for German chemical weapons during World War I. Einstein's work led to the atom bomb and nuclear energy, which has since still been abused and developed in such a way that there exists an excess of nuclear waste that scientists do not know how to properly dispose (Meador, 2013). J. Craig Venter carried out significant research on synthetic biology and was the first to construct nucleotides (Garrett, p. 28). During this effort, he took the initiative to commission a large analysis of the implications of synthetic genomics on public health and national security. Although the legislative and government bodies are slow to react to his concerns, the important message to draw is that governing entities cannot act without information. As the creator of a new type of technology, Venter is holding himself accountable and taking steps to understand the potential consequences of this biological development. He states himself that, "There's not a single aspect of human life that doesn't have the potential to be totally transformed by these technologies in the future" (Garrett, p. 29). His understanding of the conceivable ramifications is an important step to helping protect society as a whole.

Scientists and engineers must make the effort to take responsibility for the work they do and not allow themselves to be enticed by the shear concept of developing of technology such that they forget to consider the effect of their work after fruition. If our technological leaders do not exercise caution over their own work, there will be little to no protection against society for the potential consequences.

References

Crouch, Martha. “Confessions of a Botanist.” New Internationalist Magazine. March 1991. Web. 28 March 2014.

Garrett, Laurie. “Biology’s Brave New World: The Promise and Perils of the Synbio Revolution.” Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. (2013): 28-46. Web. 27 March 2014.

Meador, Ron. "Two nuclear-waste-disposal reports raise doubts this problem can be solved." MinnPost. 03 Dec. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

March 25, 2014: (Make-Up) Overconsumption

In today’s society overconsumption is rampant. While the need for using as many resources as we do is open to debate, the negative effect from overproduction and waste is not. When hundreds of billions of pounds of waste are being generated each year (Woodhouse, p. 131), landfills begin to fill up too quickly, as harmful chemicals are released into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. If society is going to continue to generate and consume on such a large scale, it is imperative to figure out a way to manufacture products and services that produce less waste and are reusable once the initial life cycle has ended.

While the USA has made strides towards a greener society through government programs instituted by President Obama (Breyman, 2008), the US is no longer a self-sustaining economy, where even products “Made in the U.S.A.” still have components from countries all over the world. In the article The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From” the author goes on a search to find where Toyotas are actually made. Although the official production facility is in Kentucky, the author concedes that it was impossible for him to trace back the origin of every single component that goes in to the car (Keim, 2013). This practice is commonplace for many different products, and it’s reasonable to conclude that if corporations are trying to hide where all these components originate from, they are also trying to hide how the manufacturing plants operate in these foreign countries, specifically how much waste they produce and the plants harmful effects on the environment.

One only has to look as far as China to see how poorly or unregulated environmental policies affect the surrounding areas. Due to China’s lower standards for factories to operate, smog has taken over many major cities. In 2014, the air quality in Beijing was so poor the Chinese government raised their smog alert to the second highest level for the first time, indicating record breaking levels of poisonous smog - up to 20 times the level the World Health Organization (Ross, 2014) - considers safe being inhaled by all of Beijing’s citizens. The reason for all this smog are the factories that create the tiny plastic pieces that go into products “Made in the U.S.A.”.

The saddest part about this crisis is that it seems most of the technology for a change to a greener economy already exist, yet due to legacy and greed by both corporations and politicians, no significant changes have occurred. It is our duty as consumers to make sure we use renewable energy and greener technology as best we can, while discontinuing support for companies and products that unquestionably damage the environment.

References

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

Breyman, Steve. “Notes on a Green Economy”. Counterpunch. 9 Dec. 2008. Web. 2 April 2014.

Keim, Brandon. “The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From”. Nautil. 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 2 April 2014.

Ross, Philip. “Beijing Air Pollution Alert Raised to ‘Orange’ For First Time After Smog Levels Become Hazardous”. International Business Times. 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 1 April 2014. 

March 25, 2014: Does Engineering Promote Overconsumption?

At what point do luxuries become necessities? Do we just have to have the latest iPad release? Corporations feed off of our consumerist society by creating endless supplies for endless demands of new and trivial gadgets. Predictably, this leads to enormous amounts of waste along every step of a product’s life cycle, from manufacturing and production to throwing it away when it breaks or becomes obsolete. It has been estimated that for every 100 pounds manufactured, 3200 pounds of waste are created in the production process alone (Woodhouse, p.132). So what is the solution to this dilemma? Does the responsibility fall to the engineers who design these products to create a more green production cycle that creates less waste, or is the onus on the consumers to finally decide that no, they don’t actually need the latest iPad Air, the old one works just fine. The obvious answer is obviously more complex than picking one group or the other, but while the engineering world is starting to make progress in both the corporate and academic world regarding a less wasteful (and more profitable) production cycle, human greed and need for consumption seem to be more difficult problems for us to master.

There are a lot of factors that go into our culture of waste, but I think it all stems back to one philosophical belief of modern consumerism: The more money we have, the more willing we become to spend it. Based on this philosophy, it’s easy to see how life can quickly become filled with unnecessary luxuries, just for the sake of having them. Another problem, one article argues, is that the 9-5 work week creates tired workers who want nothing more than instant gratification in what little free time is available (Raptitude, 2014). What do tired people with extra money do to relieve stress and reward themselves? For most people, the answer is spending money, making them consumer, which brings us back to the root of the original waste problem.

Changing the consumerist mindset of an entire society is no small task, particularly now that most things in society have become connected on a global scale. Consumerism also has tangible benefits, because spending money creates more demand, which in turn creates more jobs, which helps the economy as a whole. It’s easy to see how cutting back on spending on a large scale could be potentially disastrous for the economy, however at the rate we as a society buy things up, waste is only going to continue to pile up, faster than engineering can counter it with new innovations and procedures, and an impotent world of waste has a much bleaker outlook than a down economy in the long run.

References

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

“Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed”. Raptitude.com. Web. 26 March 2014.