Module 003 – Science and Technology
This module will contain the following topics:
1. Science for Technology and Technology for Science
2. Sociopolitical Influence on Science
3. Technoscience and Intellectual Property Tussles
Science for Technology and Technology for Science
Our societies are dominated and even 'driven' by ideas and products from science and
technology (S&T). It is very likely that the influence on S&T on our lives will continu e to
increase in the years to come. Scientific and technological knowledge, skills and artefacts
'invade' all realms of life in our modern society: The workplace and the public sphere is
increasingly dependent on new as well as the more established technologies. So are also
the private sphere and our leisure time. Knowledge and skills in S&T are crucial for most of
our actions and decisions, as workers, as voters, as consumers etc. Meaningful and
independent participation in modern democracies assumes an ab ility to judge evidence
and arguments in the many socio-scientific issues that are on the political agenda.
In short, modern societies need people with S&T qualifications at the top level as well as a
general public with a broad understanding of S&T contents, methods and as a social force
shaping the future. S&T are major cultural products of human history. All citizens,
independent of occupational 'needs', need to be acquainted with this part of human culture.
S&T are important for economical well-being, but also seen from the perspective of a
broadly based liberal education.
One might expect that the increasing significance of S&T should be accompanied with a
parallel growth in the interest in these subjects as well as increasing understanding of basic
scientific ideas and ways of thinking. This does, however, not seem to be the case.
The evidence for such claims are in part based on 'hard facts' (educational statistics etc.), in
part on large comparative studies and in part based on research and analysis of trends in
our societies. The situation is described briefly described and analyzed in the following.
Who needs Science and Technology and Why?
The problematic situation for S&T can be seen from different perspectives and
different interests. These range from industry's concern about national, economical
competitiveness to a concern about an empowerment at the grassroots level for the
protection and conservation of nature. Different conceptions of 'the crisis' may
possibly lead to different solutions. Here is an indication of possible arguments for
learning S&T.
1. Industry needs people with high qualifications in S&T. Modern industry is high tech and often called 'knowledge industry'. This industry is in need for highly
qualified scientists and engineers to survive in a competitive global economy.
This aspect is of importance for the economy of the nation. (But young people do
not base their educational choices on what is good for the nation!)
Course Module
2. Universities and research institution have similarly a need for researchers (and
teachers) to maintain research at high international level and to provide good
learning possibilities for coming generations of experts, researchers and teachers.
The above-mentioned two groups constitute a highly skilled elite. But the actual
number of such people may not necessarily be very high. It would also be a mistake
to have mainly these groups in mind when reforming S&T in schools. A policy based
on this perspective could even further decrease the proportion of young people who
find S&T interesting, and who would choose to continue with S&T. The next
perspective is one of high importance for a much larger gro up, the teaching
profession:
3. Schools need qualified teachers in S&T.
The decline in recruitment has already hit the teaching profession. Well-qualified
and enthusiastic teachers constitute the key to any improvement of S&T in
schools -- and for the further development of knowledge, interests and attitudes
of ordinary citizens when they have left school. The S&T teachers also play a key
role in the recruitment of people to the S&T sector. The long-term effects of a lack
of good S&T teachers could be very damaging, although the effects are not so
immediately observable as the lack of qualified people in industry and research.
The S&T teachers need a broad basis for their activities. A solid foundation in the
academic discipline is important, but not enough. They need broader
perspectives and skills on order to cope with challenges of the sort outlined
earlier in this document. In short: S&T teachers do not only need a foundation in
S&T, they also need to have perspectives on S&T in a historical and social context.
This may require reforms in teacher training.
The next points, although different, are of importance for more or less all citizens.
4. A broader labor market needs S&T competencies
People in general need qualifications in S&T to compete on the modern labor
market. The need is great and growing fast, as knowledge and skills based on
science and technology become prerequisites in new areas and new parts of the
labor market. Not only doctors, pharmacists, engineers and technicians need S&T.
Health workers handle complicated and dangerous equipment, secretaries and
office staff need good computer literacy etc. New as well as more traditional
technologies often dominate the workplaces, and those with skills in these areas
may have a competitive advantage for their further career. Many countries have
also identified a need for people with S&T skills to replace those retiring in the
near future.
There is also a general need to become flexible and able to learn. A foundation in
S&T as well as mathematics is of great importance to develop such learning skills.
Besides, most of the changes are likely to be related to technological innovations,
and people with basic S&T skills may be better equipped to cope with changes
and innovations.
5. S&T for citizenship and democratic participation:
As stated in the introduction, our modern society is dominated by S&T. Many
aspects of life have a dimension related to S&T. All citizens are confronted with
such issues as consumers and as voters. As consumers we have to take decisions
about food and health, quality and characteristics of products, claims made in
advertisements etc. As voters we have to take a stand and be able to judge
arguments on all sorts of issues. Many of these political issues also have an S&T
dimension. In such cases, knowledge of the S&T involved has to be combined with
values and political ideals. Issues relating to the environment are obviously of
this nature, but also issues relating to energy, traffic, health policy etc. have S&T
dimensions. It is indeed hard to think of any contemporary issue that does not
have some aspects relating to S&T.
Social and political issues should not be seen as 'technical' – and left in the hands
of the 'expert'. A broad Public understanding of science and technology may in
fact be a democratic safeguard against 'scientism' and a domination of experts.
The above 'democratic argument' does not only assume that people have some
grasp of the contents of S&T. It also requires some public understanding of the
nature of S&T and the role they play in society. Among other things, people need
to know that scientific knowledge is based on argumentation and evidence, and
that statistical considerations about risks play an important role. Everybody
cannot become 'experts', but everybody should have tools to be able to judge
which 'expert' and what kind of arguments one should trust.
Science and Technology in schools – recent trends and responses
The challenges for S&T education outlined in this document have been met in
different ways. Many countries have introduced more or less radical reforms, and
there has been support to curriculum development and experiments. Reforms are
related to the content and framing of the curriculum as well as to pedagogies:
teaching methods and organization of the learning processes.
A general trend is that there seems to be less influence from the (traditional)
academic organization of curricula and contents. An underlying concern is that S&T
should contribute to more general aims of schooling in a situation where 'everybody'
attends school for 12-13 years. The general tendency is a widening of the perspective
and a gradual redefinition of what counts as valid school science. Social and ethical
aspects of S&T are often becoming part of the curriculum. The following is a listing of
some trends. Many are related, but still mentioned separately. Not all these trends
are found in all countries, but together they represent a series of identifiable
tendencies:
A. Towards "Science for all"
More weight on aspects of science that can be seen to contribute to the overall
goals of schooling. Key concern: liberal education ('allmenn dannelse',
'allmänn Bildning' Bildung, Formation..…) Hence; there is less weight on
traditional academic contents and science as mainly as preparation for
tertiary studies in science. Specialization postponed to the last few years of
school.
B. Towards more subject integration.
Course Module
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
In the early years of schooling, S&T is usually more or less integrated with
other school subjects. Only later are the sciences presented as separate
disciplines. The level where this specialization starts varies between
countries. It is a general trend that separate science subjects are taught only at
a late stage. (e.g. in Norway, only the two last years of upper secondary school
have single science subject.)
Widening perspectives
More weight on cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of science and
technology. S&T are presented as human activities. These aspects may also
appeal to the pupils that are in search for 'meaning', not only factual
information and the accepted correct explanations.
NOS: The Nature of Science
The 'Nature of science' has become an important concern in the curriculum.
This often means a rejection of the often stereotypical (and false) image of
science as a simple search for objective and final truths based on
unproblematic observations. The weight on recent understanding of the
nature of science also implies a stress on the social, cultural and human
aspects of science. Science is presented as knowledge that builds on evidence
as well arguments in a creative search for meaning and explanation. This
aspect also strengthens that human and social relevance of science, and may
attract pupils who value such aspects.
Contexts become important
More weight on putting science and technology in meaningful contexts for the
learner. This often implies examples from everyday life and current socio scientific issues. These themes or topics are by their nature interdisciplinary,
and require teacher cooperation. Such issues often require methods like
project work. (For which teachers have to be adequately educated.)
Concern for the environment
Towards more weight on environmental questions as part of the S&T
curriculum. (The name of the S&T subject in the new Norwegian curriculum is
"Science and environmental study") Environmental issues are often of the
socio-scientific nature mentioned above, and their treatment often requires
project work in interdisciplinary settings.
Weight on Technology
Technology has recently been introduced in many countries as a subject in its
own right, also in the general part of the education system. In other countries,
it has received a broader place within the science curriculum, not only as
interesting concrete examples to illustrate scientific theories and principles.
(The name of the new S&T subject in Denmark is "Nature and technology").
The curricular definition of 'technology' is, however, often confusing and
incoherent. In some countries technology is placed in a context of 'design and
technology' (in the UK). In other countries the term technology implies
modern information technology and ICT. In some places, the stress is on the
technical (and underlying scientific) aspect of technology. In other countries
the weight is put on human relations to technology, society and technology
etc.
STS: Science, Technology and Society
STS has become an acronym for a whole 'movement' within S&T education.
The key concern is not only the Science and the Technology content, but also
the relationship between S&T and society. The trends described in the
preceding points (relevant contexts, stress on the environmental and the role
of technology) can also be seen as belonging to an increase of the STS
perspective.
I. Inclusion of ethics
When S&T issues are treated in a wider context, it becomes evident that many
of the topics have ethical dimensions. This is of course the case when dealing
with socioscientific issues. But ethics is also involved in discussions relating to
'pure' science, like what sorts of research one ought to prioritize (or even
allow), and the moral dilemmas in e.g. using animals in research. Again, this
ethical dimension may contribute to giving S&T a more human face. It is also
likely to empower future voters on important political issues on which they
are invited to take a stand.
J. "Less is more"
This has become a slogan for curriculum development. More weight is put on
'great stories' of S&T and on presentation of key ideas and their development,
often in an historical and social context. These key ideas replace (the
impossible) attempt to give an encyclopaedic coverage of the whole of
science. One hopes to avoid the curse of the overcrowded curriculum that
leaves so little time for reflection and search for meaning. By choosing
'typical' and important stories, one hopes to convey an understanding of the
nature of S&T. One also hopes to nourish curiosity and respect for S&T – and
to inspire some students to pursue S&T. 'Narratives' have become a key word
for this development.
K. Information technologies as subject matter and as tools
Information and communication technologies (ICT) are products that by their
definition 'belong' to the S&T sector. (The 'hardware' is science-based
technologies; the 'software' builds on basic mathematics etc.) Hence, the
underlying physical and technical ideas are to an increasing extent treated as
important subject matter on their own right in S&T curricula.
Besides, ICT provide new tools that are very suitable for teaching and learning
in S&T. The whole range of 'ordinary' software is used, including databases,
spreadsheets, statistical and graphical programs. In addition, modelling,
visualization and simulations of processes are important. ICT is also used for
taking time series of measurements for a wide variety of parameters ('data
logging').
S&T subjects are likely to be key elements in strategies to develop ICT to
become a better educational tool. It is also likely that S&T teachers are better
educationally equipped for this task than most other teachers – although they
are also in need for ways to be updated and retrained.
Cultural Influence in Science
THE JOY OF SCIENCE.
Course Module
For most scientists, a powerful psychological motivation is curiosity about "how things
work" and a taste for intellectual stimulation. The joy of scientific discovery is captured in
the following excerpts from letters between two scientists involved in the development of
quantum mechanics: Max Planck (who opened the quantum era in 1900) and Erwin
Schrodinger (who formulated a successful quantum theory in 1926).
[Planck, in a letter to Schrodinger, says] "I am reading your paper in the way a curious child
eagerly listens to the solution of a riddle with which he has struggled for a long time, and I
rejoice over the beauties that my eye discovers." [Schrodinger replies by agreeing that]
"everything resolves itself with unbelievable simplicity and unbelievable beauty,
everything turns out exactly as one would wish, in a perfectly straightforward manner, all
by itself and without forcing."
OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVES and PRACTICAL CONCERNS
Most scientists try to achieve personal satisfaction and professional success by forming
intellectual alliances with colleagues and by seeking respect and rewards, status and power
in the form of publications, grant money, employment, promotions, and honors.
When a theory (or a request for research funding) is evaluated, most scientists will be
influenced by the common-sense question, "How will the result of this evaluation affect my
own personal and professional life?"
Maybe a scientist has publicly taken sides on an issue and there is ego involvement with a
competitive desire to "win the debate"; or time and money has been invested in a theory or
research project, and there will be higher payoffs, both practical and psychological, if there
is a favorable evaluation by the scientific community. In these situations, when there is a
substantial investment of personal resources, many scientists will try to use logic and
"authority" to influence the process and result of evaluation.
IDEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES are based on subjective values and on political goals for "the
way things should be" in society. These principles span a wide range of concerns, including
socioeconomic structures, race relations, gender issues, social philosophies and customs,
religions, morality, equality, freedom, and justice.
A dramatic example of political influence is the control of Russian biology, from the 1930s
into the 1960s, by the "ideologically correct" theories and research programs of Lysenko,
supported by the power of the Soviet government.
OPINIONS OF "AUTHORITIES" can also influence evaluation. The quotation marks are a
reminder that a perception of authority is in the eye of the beholder. Perceived authority
can be due to an acknowledgment of expertise, a response to a dominant personality,
and/or involvement in a power relationship. Authority that is based at least partly on
power occurs in scientists' relationships with employers, tenure committees, cliques of
colleagues, professional organizations, journal editors and referees, publishers, grant
reviewers, and politicians who vote on funding for science.
SOCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS. These five factors (psychology, practicality,
metaphysics, ideology, authority) interact with each other, and they develop and operate in
a complex social context at many levels — in the lives of individuals, in the scientific
community, and in society as a whole. In an attempt to describe this complexity, the
analysis-and-synthesis framework of ISM includes: the characteristics of individuals and
their interactions with each other and with a variety of groups (familial, recreational,
professional, political); profession-related politics(occurring primarily within the scientific
community) and societal politics (involving broader issues in society); and the institutional
structures of science and society.
The term "cultural-personal" implies that both cultural and personal levels are
important. These levels are intimately connected by mutual interactions because
individuals (with their motivations, concerns, worldviews, and principles) work and think
in the context of a culture, and this culture (including its institutional structure, operations,
and politics, and its shared concepts and habits of thinking) is constructed by and
composed of individual persons.
Cultural-personal factors are influenced by the social and institutional context that
constitutes the reward system of a scientific community. In fact, in many ways this context
can be considered a causal mechanism that is partially responsible for producing the
factors. For example, a desire for respect is intrinsic in humans, existing independently of a
particular social structure, but the situations that stimulate this desire (and the responses
that are motivated by these situations) do depend on the social structure. An important
aspect of a social-institutional structure is its effects on the ways in which authority is
created and manifested, especially when power relationships are involved.
What are the results of mutual interactions between science and society? How does
science affect culture, and how does culture affect science?
SCIENCE AFFECTS CULTURE.
The most obvious effect of science has been its medical and technological applications, with
the accompanying effects on health care, lifestyles, and social structures. But science also
influences culture, in many modern societies, by playing a major role in shaping cultural
worldviews, concepts, and thinking patterns. Sometimes this occurs by the gradual,
unorchestrated diffusion of ideas from science into the culture. At other times, however,
there is a conscious effort, by scientists or nonscientists, to use "the authority of science"
for rhetorical purposes, to claim that scientific theories and evidence support a particular
belief system or political program.
CULTURE AFFECTS SCIENCE.
ISM, which is mainly concerned with the operation of science, asks "How does culture affect
science?" Some influence occurs as a result of manipulating the "science affects culture"
influence described above. If society wants to obtain certain types of science-based
medical or technological applications, this will influence the types of scientific research that
society supports with its resources. And if scientists (or their financial supporters) have
already accepted some cultural concepts, such as metaphysical and/or ideological theories,
they will tend to prefer (and support) scientific theories that agree with these culturalpersonal theories. In the ISM diagram this influence appears as a conceptual
factor, external relationships with cultural-personal theories. For example, the Soviet
government supported the science of Lysenko because his theories and research supported
the principles of Marxism. They also hoped that this science would increase their own
political power, so their support of Lysenko contained a strong element of self-interest.
PERSONAL CONSISTENCY.
Course Module
Some cultural-personal influence occurs due to a desire for personal consistency in
life. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1956), if there is a conflict
between ideas, between actions, or between thoughts and actions, this inconsistency
produces an unpleasant dissonance, and a person will be motivated to take action aimed at
reducing the dissonance. In the overall context of a scientist's life, which includes science
and much more, a scientist will seek consistency between the science and non -science
aspects of life.
Because groups are formed by people, the principles of personal consistency can be
extrapolated (with appropriate modifications, and with caution) beyond individuals to
other levels of social structure, to groups that are small or large, including societies and
governments. For example, during the period when the research program of Lysenko
dominated Russian biology, the Soviets wanted consistency between their ideological
beliefs and scientific beliefs. A consistency between ideology and science will reduce
psychological dissonance, and it is also logically preferable. If a Marxist theory and a
scientific theory are both true, these theories should agree with each other. If the theories
of Marx are believed to be true, there tends to be a decrease in logical status for all theories
that are inconsistent with Marx, and an increase in status for theories consistent with
Marx. This logical principle, applied to psychology, forms the foundation for theories of
cognitive dissonance, which therefore also predict an increase in the status of Lysenko's
science in the context of Soviet politics.
Usually scientists (and others) want theories to be not just plausible, but also useful. With
Lysenko's biology, the Soviets hoped that attaining consistency between science policy and
the principles of communism would produce increased problem-solving utility. Part of this
hope was that Lysenko's theories, applied to agricultural policy, would increase the Russian
food supply; but nature did not cooperate with the false theories, so this policy resulted in
decreased productivity. Another assumption was that the Soviet political policies would
gain popular support if there was a belief that this policy was based on (and was consistent
with) reliable scientific principles. And if science "plays a major role in shaping
cultural...thinking patterns," the government wanted to insure that a shaping -of-ideas by
science would support their ideological principles and political policies. The government
officials also wanted to maintain and increase their own power, so self -interest was
another motivating factor.
FEEDBACK.
In the ISM diagram, three large arrows point toward "evaluation of theory" from the three
evaluation factors, and three small arrows point back the other way. These small arrows
show the feedback that occurs when a conclusion about theory status already has been
reached based on some factors and, to minimize cognitive dissonance, there is a tendency
to interpret other factors in a way that will support this conclusion. Therefore, each
evaluation criterion is affected by feedback from the current status of the theory and from
the other two criteria.
THOUGHT STYLES.
In the case of Lysenko there was an obvious, consciously planned interference with the
operation of science. But cultural influence is usually not so obvious. A more subtle
influence is exerted by the assumed ideas and values of a culture (especially the culture of a
scientific community) because these assumptions, along with explicitly formulated ideas
and values, form a foundation for the way scientists think when they generate and evaluate
theories, and plan their research programs. The influence of these foundational ideas and
values, on the process and content of science, is summarized at the top of the ISM diagram:
"Scientific activities...are affected by culturally influenced thought styles
OVER-GENERALIZING.
When scholars are thinking about cultural-personal factors and their influence in science,
too often there is too much over-generalizing. It's easy to get carried away into silly ideas,
unless we remember that all of these cultural-personal factors vary in different areas of
science and in communities within each area, and for different individuals, so the types and
amounts of resulting influences (on the process of science and the content of science) vary
widely.
CONTROVERSY.
Among scholars who study science there is a wide range of views about the extent to which
cultural factors influence the process and content of science. An extreme emphasis on
cultural influence is neither accurate nor educationally beneficial, and that even though
there is a significant cultural influence on the process of science, usually (but not always)
the content of science is not strongly affected by cultural factors.
Technoscience
Technoscience refers to the strong interactions in contemporary scientific research and
development (R&D) between that which traditionally was separated into science
(theoretical) and technology (practical), especially by philosophers. The emphasis that the
term techno(-)science places on technology as well as the intensity of the connection
between science and technology varies. Moreover the majority of scientists and
philosophers of science continue to externalize technology as applications and
consequencesof scientific progress. Nevertheless they recognize the success and efficiency
of technology as promoting realism, objectivity, and universality of science.
The prehistory of the concept of technoscience goes back at least to the beginning of
modern science. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) explicitly associated knowledge and power;
science provided knowledge of the effective causes of phenomena and thus the capacity for
efficient intervention within them. The concept became clearer during the first half of the
twentieth century. Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962) in Le nouvel esprit scientifique (1934;
The new scientific spirit) places the new scientific spirit under the preponderant influence
of the mathematical and technical operations, and utilizes the expression science
technique to designate contemporary science. However the term techno(-)science itself was
not coined until the 1970s.
The History of Techno(-)science
The first important occurrence of the term appears in the title of an article titled
"Ethique et techno-science" by Gilbert Hottois, first published in 1978 (included in
Hottois 1996). This first usage expresses a critical reaction against the theoretical
and discursive conception of contemporary science, and against philosophy blind to
the importance of technology. It associates technoscience with the ethical question,
Course Module
“What are we to make of human beings?” posed from an evolutionist perspective
open to technical intervention.
Throughout the 1980s two French philosophers, Jean François Lyotard and Bruno
Latour, contributed to the diffusion of the term in France and North America. For
Lyotard technoscience realizes the modern project of rendering the human being, as
argued from the work of René Descartes (1596–1650), a master and possessor of
nature. This project has become technocratic and should be denounced because of
its political association with capitalism. As a promoter of the postmodern, Lyotard
thus facilitates diffusion of the term within postmodern discussions.
In Science in Action (1987), Latour utilizes the plural technosciences in order to
underline his empirical and sociological approach. The technosciences refer to those
sciences created by human beings in real-world socioeconomic-political contexts, by
conflicts and alliances among humans and also among humans and non -humans
(institutions, machines, and animals among others). Latour insists on networks and
hybrid mixtures. He denounces the myth of a pure science, distinct from technologies
susceptible to good and bad usages. In reality it is less technology that Latour
internalizes in the idea of science than society (and therefore politics), of which
technologies are part in the same ways as other artifacts. He rejects any
philosophical idea, whether ancient or modern, of a science that is supra - or extrasocial and apolitical. The worldwide successes of the technosciences are a matter of
political organization and will, and do not derive from some universal recognition of
a rational and objectively true knowledge that progressively imposes itself. Latour
has contributed to the success of the term technoscience in social-constructivist
discussion since the 1990s.
The work of Donna Haraway illustrates well the diffusion of technoscience crossed
with the postmodern and social-constructivist discussions in North America.
Technoscience becomes the word-symbol of the contemporary tangle of processes
and interactions. The basic ingredients are the sciences, technologies, and societies.
These allow the inclusion of everything: from purely symbolic practices to the
physical processes of nature in worldwide networks, productions, and exchanges.
In France, in continental Europe, and in the countries of Latin America, the use of
the term technoscience has often remained closer to its original meaning that
involves more ontological (as with German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889 –
1976)), epistemological, and ethical questioning than social and political criticism.
Indeed, in a perspective that complements the one provided here, in La revolución
tecnocientífica (2003; The technoscience revolution), Spanish philosopher Javier
Echeverría provides an extensive analysis of technoscience as both concept and
phenomenon. A political usage is not, however, rare, especially in France where
there is a tendency to attribute to technoscience a host of contemporary ills such as
technicism and technocracy, multinational capitalism, economic neo-liberalism,
pollution, the depletion of natural resources, the climate change, globalization,
planetary injustice, the disappearance of human values, and more, all related to U.S.
imperialism. The common archetype of technoscience is Big Science, originally
exemplified by the Manhattan Project, which closely associated science, technology,
and the politics of power. In this interpretation, technoscience is presented from the
point of view of domination, mastery, and control, and no t from that of exploration,
research, and creativity. It is technocratic and totalitarian, not technopoiétique and
emancipating.
The Questions of Technoscience
What distinguishes contemporary science as technoscience is that, unlike the
philosophical enterprise of science identified as a fundamentally linguistic and
theoretical activity, it is physically manipulative, interventionist, and creative.
Determining the function of a gene whether in order to create a medicine or to
participate in the sequencing of the human genome leads to technoscientific
knowledge-power-doing. In a technoscientific civilization, distinctions between
theory and practice, fundamental and applied, become blurred. Philosophers are
invited to define human death or birth, taking into account the consequences of
these definitions in the practical-ethical plans, that is to say, in regard to what will or
will not be permitted (for example, the harvesting of organs or embryonic
experimentation).
Another example is familiar to bioethicists. Since the 1980s there has existed a line
of transgenic mice (Onco mice) used as a model for research on the genesis of
certain cancers. Here is an object at once natural and artificial, theoretical and
practical, abstract and concrete, living and yet patented like an invention. Their
existence and use in research further involves many different cognitive and practical
scientific questions and interests: therapeutic, economic, ethical, and juridical. It is
even a political issue, because transgenic mice are at the center of a conflict between
the European Union and the United States over the patentability of living organisms.
The most radical questions raised by technosciences concern their application to the
natural (as a living organisms formed by the evolutionary process)
and manipulated (as a contingent creation of human culture). Such questions
acquire their greatest importance when one takes into account the past and future
(unknowable) immensity of biological, geological, and cosmological temporality, in
asking, for example: What will become of the human being in a million years? From
this perspective the investigation of human beings appears open not only to
symbolic invention (definitions, images, interpretations, values), but also to techno physical invention (experimentation, mutations, prosthetics, cyborgs). A related
examination places the technosciences themselves within the scope of an evolution
that is more and more affected by conscious human intervention. Both approaches
raise questions and responsibilities that are not foreign to ethics and politics but
that invite us at the same time to consider with a critical eye all specific ethics and
politics because the issues exceed all conceivable societal projects.
References and Supplementary Materials
Online Supplementary Reading Materials
1. Science and Technology in Education – Current Challenges and Possible Solutions;
http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/users/nunez/sjobergreportsciencetech.pdf; November 7,
2017
Course Module
2. Technoscience; http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacstranscripts-and-maps/technoscience; November 7, 2017
3. Cultural Influence in Science: Causes and Effects;
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/science/cp2.htm; November 7, 2017
4. Science and Society; https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceandsociety_01;
November 7, 2017
5. Social Impact/Activism; https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/careers/college-tocareer/chemistry-careers/social-impact.html; November 7, 2017
6. Impact of Science and Technology on Society and Economy;
http://www.worldacademy.org/trieste-forum/march-2013; November 7, 2017