Science, Technology and Society

Final Assignment
Submitted to: Dr. Sreekumar Pillai

Sahil Avi Kapoor

PGP 1 (B)
20140121136

1|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

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, theres 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

2|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

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. Whats 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, isnt it possible that it might be influenced, mended,
redesigned and altered by authority? Talking about the theory of falsification thats
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 cant 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 Kuhns theory is based on
the availability of boundary objects and trading zones that made communication
and knowledge transfer possible between subsequent paradigms, thus moving Kuhns
theory to an insignificant space. The critics argue that the separation between
paradigms cant 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. Isnt it then up to these messengers to
selectively perceive, interpret and transmit this communication? And what is the
guarantee that these messengers arent politically aligned or motivated?
3|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

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
shouldnt 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.

4|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

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. Obamas 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 arent. 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 itll 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
5|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

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 thats 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.

6|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136

References
1. Mitzi (2008), Influence of Technology on our Daily Lives; Retrieved from
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Influence-Of-Technology-On-Our-Daily160936.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

7|S c i en c e , Te c h nol o gy a n d S o ci e ty

Sahil

Avi

Kapoor|136