Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute—Fall 2000
STSS/STSH 1110 and IHSS 1960
Introduction to Science and Technology Studies
Tuesday / Friday 12:00 – 1:50 pm
Sage 3303
Instructor: Atsushi Akera
akeraa@rpi.edu / Sage 5206
Office Hours: TF 4-5p, or by appointment
Section (CRN)
STSH1110.01(20167)
STSS1110.01 (20571)
IHSS1960.22 (20633)
IHSS1960.23 (20634)
IHSS1960.24 (20635)
IHSS1960.25 (23636)
IHSS1960.40 (23303)
Meet in:
Sage 4112
Sage 4112
Sage 3705
Lally 104
Sage 5510
Sage 4203
*
Instructor:
Office
Jill Fisher (fishej5@rpi.edu)
Sage 5502
"
"
Jason Patton (pattonj@rpi.edu)
Sage 5704
Virginia Eubanks (eubanv@rpi,edu) Sage 5704
Ariel Bergmann (bergme@rpi.edu) TBA
John Polimeni(polimj@rpi.edu)
TBA
*See instructor for section and room assignment
Ofc Hrs.
TBA
"
TBA
TBA
TBA
TBA
Course Description:
This course is designed to provide you with an entry into Science and Technology Studies. It will
introduce you to the multiple ways in which science and technology, individuals and institutions, and
nature and economy mutually shape one another to the benefit, and occasional detriment of society. In
this course, we encourage students to take a “critical” attitude towards technical knowledge. By this, we
don’t mean tearing science and engineering apart. However, like a movie critic, we would like you to be
able to judge the good from the bad. Is MP3 good for musical artistry? Do you like the Laptop
Initiative? Could Microsoft design a less annoying word processor? What are the plusses and minuses of
our car culture and the suburban ideal? And should the government have funded the Superconducting
Super-Collider? Should there be more AIDS research?
More importantly, we would like you to recognize that all of the judgments we make about science and
technology are subjective. We would like you to begin asking such questions as, who benefits? Who
gets left out? What do we gain? What do we lose? What makes science and technology exciting? What
gets buried in our rush to try something new? Instead of just asking “why not change the world,” to use a
popular phrase here at RPI, we would like you to form your own sense of the kind of world that you
would like to create through your engineering and scientific work. This course also offers an intellectual
foundation for STS majors and minors, and for students interested in taking higher-level courses within
the department.
Overview of Course Requirements:



Weekly short essays
Team Paper
Class participation
-300 words each
-Ten pages, written in groups of 3-5 people
331/3%
331/3%
331/3%
The instructors reserve the right to modify a final grade based on the individual circumstances of each
student. Class participation grades are issued through the sole discretion of the instructor of your section.
Required Texts:



Albert Teich, ed., Technology and the Future (available in RPI bookstore.)
Introduction to STS course reader, a bound set of xeroxed readings (purchase from Anne DeCelle,
Sage 5202)
Online articles and websites obtained at designated URLs.
What is STS?
Read this syllabus and other handouts carefully. They are your bible to some of the concepts that “count”
in this course, and they spell out the work you have to do. You will find it useful to think in terms of the
various disciplinary components that together make up Science and Technology Studies. Some of the
questions raised in these component disciplines are as follows:

Philosophy: What is technology? How do we construct scientific knowledge? Are there truths?
How do technologies mediate our perception of reality? Are technologies value-neutral? Or,
alternatively, are technologies merely “tools”? What does it mean for a technology to be
valenced towards a particular purpose? Are technology and society distinct entities? What is a
sociotechincal system? In what ways can society influence the course of scientific research?
What is the relationship between science and technology?

History: What are the uses of history? How can we learn from history so we do not repeat past
mistakes? More in the Nietzschean sense, can history provide us with a sense of alternate
realities towards which we can direct our technical work? How does history help develop
humanistic sensibilities that are, or ought to be a part of scientific and engineering work? How
important has technology been to Western societies? To non-Western societies? How has
science and technology changed our economy? How do corporations, national governments, and
local governments shape technological development, and what consequences has this had?

Social Studies: Why are women less likely to be engineers? What is the anatomy of
environmental racism? To what extent does technology contribute to racial and economic
segregation and the decline of the inner city? Does the Internet promise to increase or decrease
social inequalities, and how might changes in the technology reduce or exacerbate this effect?
How do technology and consumerism define our leisure? How does technology shape our
workplace? Why are women more likely to be engineers today than thirty years ago?

Ethics: What is the purpose of science? How should technology be used? How should we
distribute the risks and benefits of science and technology? How should we weigh present
benefits against future liabilities? What responsibilities do scientists have for the knowledge they
create? What responsibilities do engineers have for public safety? Are engineers “mere
employees,” or do they have professional and ethical responsibilities, as do doctors and lawyers?
What are the limitations of professional ethics? Can there be higher standards for ethics? Would
you be willing to abide by them?

Political Science: What is the proper sphere of public involvement? What are the rights of the
corporation? What are the rights of individuals? When does public interest outweigh the
economic interests of corporations? What is democracy? Does the United States practice a
strong form of participatory democracy? What mode, or modes of democratic governance do we
have in the United States today? Is the regulatory apparatus of our government sufficient to
protect our public interests? How can the system of governance be altered for the benefit of
consumers? When and under what circumstances can this be justified?
2
Weekly Short Essays:
The purpose of the short essays is to allow you to state your opinions about each week’s assigned
readings and designated websites. Short essays must be typed, double-spaced, and at least 300 words in
length. All short essays are due on Tuesdays, except where stated in the syllabus (Note: the first two
essays are due on Fridays). Short essays are essentially graded on a pass/fail basis. See “Appendix,”
which follows the syllabus in the Introduction to STS course reader, for further instructions.
Your final short essay grade will be based on the following scale:
A
B
C
D
F
11 Passes (out of a possible 12)
9 or 10 Passes
7 or 8 Passes
5 or 6 Passes
Less than 5 Passes
Team Paper:
You will have two options for the team paper. The first is essentially a take-home written exam, which
you will produce in teams of three to five people. The second is a group design exercise, where you will
be asked to improve upon any product or artifact of your own choosing. Under both options, you will be
given a set of questions to answer early on in the semester, which you and your team members may
answer through any legitimate form of collaboration. You will submit three drafts of the team paper. The
comments from the instructor of your section should be a valuable resource for improving your paper. In
addition, you will each be asked to submit a two to four page individual paper (typed, double spaced)
along with the final draft of the team paper, and participate in a group presentation on the final day of
class. There is an individual and group component to the team paper grade.
The deadlines for the Team Paper is as follows:
September 15
October 13
November 10
December 8
Assignment distributed / Teams assigned in class
First Draft
Second Draft
Final Draft, plus a two to four page individual paper
Class Participation:
Consider the opening lecture. Social knowledge differs from technical knowledge in that it requires
active engagement and participation. Class participation grades will be issued at the sole discretion of the
instructor of your section. In general, it will include an individual component, which will weigh how
your comments, creativity, and conduct add to class discussion. Your class participation grade will also
include a group component that will consider the performance of your section as a whole. Your
comments and conduct in plenary (the large group meeting) will be considered in weighing class
participation.
You and other members of your team (from the team paper) may also be asked, either spontaneously or in
advance, to lead the class discussion for your section. If asked in advance, your team should prepare to
bring ideas and/or material that will facilitate class discussion. Your instructor may also provide a list of
questions to help you guide the discussions.
3
The Fine Print:
Attendance: As a matter of policy, attendance is required in all H&SS courses. You must attend both plenary and
section. If you miss more than two classes (plenary and/or section), you must make up any additional absences
through extra assignments as negotiated with your section instructor. In addition, you are still responsible for turning
in all other written assignments for the week of your absence. If you miss a scheduled meeting with your section
instructor without notifying him or her twenty-four hours in advance (use email), this will also count as an absence.
Late Submissions: Late papers and short essays will be accepted only through specific arrangement with your
section instructor.
Writing vs. Class Participation: Class participation is a substantial part of the grade for this course. However, in
recognizing that some students have real difficulties speaking up in class, the section instructor, at her or his
discretion, may grant individual students the right to place greater emphasis on their weekly short essays in lieu of
class participation. If so, the quality of the short essays will be considered in assigning a modified class participation
grade. Please speak to your section instructor if you are concerned about this issue.
Gender Fair Language: Students in this course are expected to use gender fair language in their writing. Every time
you use a masculine-oriented word to refer to people in general, the implicit effect, even if unintended, is to whisper:
women don’t count. Essays that do not use gender fair language will not receive a passing grade. If you are unfamiliar
with the practice of gender fair writing, you should read "Gender Fair Language,” written by Jenny Redfern of RPI’s
Writing Center. See, www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/genderfair.html.
The Writing Center: Writing is an important component of scientific and engineering work. Believe it. In addition to
proposals and reports, you will be writing five to ten memos and emails each day. Your performance will always be
evaluated on how well you convey your ideas. Periodically, you may be advised to seek out the services of the
Writing Center. The Writing Center is located in Sage 4508. You may obtain further information at 276-8983, or
www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/.
Your section instructor may also require you to have someone at the Writing Center go over your short essay or team
paper draft before you can submit a revision for consideration. You must obtain a stamp from the Writing Center,
and then turn in both the stamped and revised version of your paper or essay. Keep in mind that improving the
writing on your short essay may not be enough to receive a passing grade, if its content remains inadequate.
ESL / LD Students: The requirements for this course will be adjusted to serve the needs and capabilities of ESL and
LD students. Students who have difficulties reading or writing should feel free to notify their section instructor about
their particular situation. In general, the guideline we will use is to require at least four hours of reading per week.
Likewise, ESL/LD student should expect to spend one-and-a-half hours a week on their short essay assignments.
Students may be advised to attend additional sessions during the instructor's office hours so they can draw
comparable value from the course.
Academic Dishonesty: Student-teacher relationships are built on trust. Students must trust that teachers have made
appropriate decisions about the structure and content of the course, and teachers must trust that the assignments
students turn in are their own. Acts that violate this trust undermine the educational enterprise. They contradict our
very reason for being at Rensselaer. The Rensselaer Handbook defines various forms of academic dishonesty and
the procedures for responding to them. Students should note, in particular, that the penalties of plagiarism can be
quite harsh.
4
Weekly Readings and Assignments:
Week 1: Technological Interdependence
August 28 & September 1
Readings:
Ed Ayres, “The History of a Cup of Coffee,” World Watch (October 1994).
Ed Ayres, “An Order of French Fries,” World Watch (February 1995).
James Burke, “The Trigger Effect,” Chapter 1 from Connections (1978).
Gary Davis, Catherine Wilt, and Jack Barkenbus, “Extended Product Responsibility: A Tool for a
Sustainable Economy,” Environment (September 1997). [p.10-15 Required, 36-37 Optional]
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Friday—All assignments are due in class)
Week 2: Concepts I—What is Progress?
September 5 & 8
Readings:
Leo Marx, “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress,” Technology Review (January 1987). [Teich
#1]
Daniel Sperling, “The Case for Electric Vehicles,” Scientific American (November 1996).
www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196sperling.html.
Emmanuel Mesthene, “The Role of Technology in Society,” Technology and Culture (1969). [Teich
#7]
Alvin Weinberg, “Can Technology Replace Social Engineering,” University of Chicago Magazine
(October 1996). [Teich #4]
Recommended Readings: [Optional]
Thomas Hughes, “Technological Momentum,” From Does Technology Drive History, ed. Merritt Roe
Smith and Leo Marx (1994). [Teich #3]
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Friday)
Week 3: Institutions
September 12 & 15
Readings:
Mark Dowie, “Pinto Madness,” Mother Jones (Sept./Oct. 1977).
James Fallows, “The M-16,” National Defense (1981).
Robert Pool, “When Failure is Not an Option,” Technology Review (July 1997).
www.techreview.com/articles/july97/pool.html.
“Listen Up—Chuck D Has Some Choice Words for the Pimps in the Music Industry,” Wired (March
1999). http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/7.03/chuckd.html.
Recommended Readings:
Robert Buderi, “Into the Big Blue Yonder,” Technology Review (July/Aug 1999).
www.techreview.com/articles/july99/buderi.htm.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due TUESDAY, September 12)
Week 4: Technology and the City
September 19 & 22
Readings:
Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus (Winter 1980). [Teich #14]
“Crabgrass Frontier,” summary based on Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier (1985).
W. Wayt Gibbs, “Transportation’s Perennial Problems,” Scientific American (October 1997).
www.sciam.com/1097issue/1097gibbs.html.
David Engwicht, “Spontaneous—not Planned,” from Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns (1993).
[p.29-34 and 128-131 Required, 132-138 Optional]
5
Recommended Readings:
Steven Lagerfeld, “What Main Street Can Learn From the Mall,” Atlantic Monthly (November 1995).
www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/malls/malls.htm.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 5: Design and Society
September 26 & 29
Readings:
Ruth Swartz Cowan, “Less Work for Mother?” American Heritage 38 (Sept. / Oct. 1987).
Ron Eglash, “Appropriating Technology: An Introduction.”
www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/atintro.htm.
Donald Norman, “The Design Challenge,” from The Design of Everyday Things (1990).
Lisa Guernsey, “Putting a Chip in Every Pot,” New York Times (13 April 2000).
www.rpi.edu/dept/NewsComm/Renss_news/NYTwinner.html.
Webbing:
Is the Dvorak Keyboard a good design? Check out the website:
www.techreview.com/articles/july96/trendslinks.html.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 6: Environmentalism, Risk, and Social Equity
October 3 & 6
Readings:
Peter Huber, “Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists,” Commentary (April 1998).
Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, “Brownlash: The New Environmental Anti-Science,” The Humanist
(November/December 1996).
Robert Bullard, “Anatomy of Environmental Racism” in Toxic Struggles (1993).
Lois Gibbs, “A History of the Love Canal,” excerpt from Love Canal the Story Continues (April
1998). www.essential.org/cchw/lovcanal/lcsum.html.
Recommended Readings:
Richard A. Denison and John F. Ruston, “Recycling Is Not Garbage,” Technology Review (October
1997). www.techreview.com/articles/oct97/recycle.html.
Webbing:
Corporate Watch, “The Environmental Costs of Computers.”
www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/hitech/computer.html.
This website indicates the environmental costs of four computer components.
Center for Health, Environment, and Justice. www.chej.org/.
A website for the organization created by Lois Gibbs, the Love Canal activist.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 7: Concepts II—Governance
October 13
Readings:
<No Class October 10>
“Demarcy: A Democratic Alternative to Electoral Politics.”
Edward Woodhouse, “Sophisticated Trial and Error in Decision Making About Risk.”
Richard Sclove, “Technological Politics as if Democracy Really Mattered,” from Technology for the
Common Good, ed. Michael Schuman and Julia Sweig (1993). [Teich #11]
Assignment:
First Draft of Team Paper (Due Friday)
6
Week 8: Technology, Work and Global Economic Development
October 17 & 20
Readings:
E.F. Schumacher, “Buddhist Economics,” from Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered
(1973). [Teich #9]
Akash Kapur, “Poor but Prosperous,” Atlantic Monthly (September 1998).
www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/kerala.htm.
Sam Pitroda, “Development, Democracy and the Village Telephone,” Harvard Business Review
(November-December 1993).
Daniel Zwerdling, “Introduction,” in Workplace Democracy (1980).
Joseph LaDou, “Deadly Migration: Hazardous Industries’ Flight to the Third World,” Technology
Review (July 1991).
Webbing:
The scenarios posed in “Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century”
mars3.gps.caltech.edu/whichworld//explore.html are all based on the idea that the Earth’s future,
whatever the outcome, will be based on global political and economic interdependence. Explore
this website.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 9: Computers, Society and Postindustrial Work
October 24 & 27
Readings:
Timothy Jenkins, “Black Futurists in the Information Age,” from Black Futurists…, written by
Khafra Om-Ra-Seti and Timothy Jenkins (1997). [Teich #12]
Gary Chapman and Lodis Rhodes, “Nurturing Neighborhood Nets” Technology Review (October
1997). www.techreview.com/articles/oct97/chapman.html.
Virginia Eubanks, “Paradigms and Perversions: A Women's Place in Cyberspace,” CPSR Newsletter
(Winter 2000). www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/eubanks.html.
Shoshana Zuboff, “In the Age of the Smart Machine,” from In the Age of the Smart Machine (1988).
[Teich #24]
Jeremy Rifkin, “Vanishing Jobs,” Mother Jones (September/October 1995).
www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO95/rifkin.html.
Recommended Readings:
Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired (April 2000).
www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html. [Read first five pages only for now]
Webbing:
High tech has not made industrial work go away. As we’ve discussed above, some work has been
shifted overseas. Others exist here in the United States. Check out the websites,
Ted Smith, “The Dark Side of High Tech Development,” Corporate Watch.
www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/hitech/overview.html.
Corporate Watch, “Interview of Jeanne Gauna of the South West Organizing Project,” Corporate
Watch. www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/hitech/swop.html.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 10: Health and Society
October 31 & November 3
Readings:
Samuel Hellman and Everett E. Vokes, “Advancing Current Treatments for Cancer,” Scientific
American (September 1996), www.sciam.com/0996issue/0996hellman.html.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Folk Cures on Trial: Alternative Care Gains a Foothold,” New York Times (31
January 2000).
David Hess, Evaluating Alternative Cancer Therapies, selection.
7
Francine Russo, “Medicine: The Clinical-Trials Bottleneck,” Atlantic Monthly (May 1999).
www.theatlantic.com/issues/99may/9905treatment.htm.
L.J. Davis, “Power Plays,” Mother Jones (Mar/Apr 2000).
www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF00/AIDS_drugs.html.
Recommended Readings:
Jean-Jacques Aulas, “Alternative Cancer Treatments,” Scientific American (September 1996).
www.sciam.com/0996issue/0996aulas.html.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 11: Genetics and Reproductive Technology
November 7 & 10
Readings:
R. Alta Charo, “And Baby Makes Three—or Four, or Five, or Six: Defining the Family After the
Genetic Revolution,” from Genetic Frontier, ed. Mark Frankel and Albert Teich (1994). [Teich
#20]
Nancy Tatje-Broussard, “Second Stage Labor: You Don’t Have to Push,” Mothering (1990).
Anne Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes,” The Sciences (1993).
Robert Weinberg, “The Dark Side of the Genome,” Technology Review (April 1991). [Teich #19]
James Hughes, “Embracing Change With All Four Arms: A Post-Humanist Defense of Genetic
Engineering,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (1996).
Webbing:
Council for Responsible Genetics: www.gene-watch.org/.
Assignment:
Second Draft of Team Paper (Due Friday)
Week 12: Ethics
November 14 & 17
Readings:
Garland Allen, “Science Misapplied: The Eugenics Age Revisited,” Technology Review
(August/September 1996). www.techreview.com/articles/as96/allen.html.
Marti Crouch, “On Quitting Botany,” personal statement, Indiana University, Department of Biology.
Martha Crouch, “Debating Responsibilities of Plant Scientists in the Decade of the Environment,”
The Plant Cell (April 1990); and a response.
Roger Boisjoly, “The Challenger Disaster: Moral Responsibility and the Working Engineer,” in
Deborah Johnson, ed., Ethical Issues in Engineering (1991).
National Society of Professional Engineers, “Code of Ethics for Engineers,” in Johnson, ed., Ethical
Issues in Engineering (1991).
Langdon Winner, “Engineering Ethics and Political Imagination,” in Deborah Johnson, ed., Ethical
Issues in Engineering (1991).
Recommended Readings:
Leon Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” from The Wisdom of Human Cloning by Leon Kass and
James Wilson (1998). [Teich #21]
Webbing:
In conjunction with the Garland Allen article, take a look at a website that discusses a controversial
book, The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray. www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.html.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
8
Week 13: Food
November 21
Readings:
<No class November 24—Thanksgiving Holiday>
David Rotman, “The Next Biotech Harvest,” Technology Review (Sept/Oct 1998).
www.techreview.com/articles/oct98/rotman.htm.
Jon Luoma, “Pandora’s Pantry,” Mother Jones (Jan./Feb. 2000).
www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF00/pandora.html.
Recommended Readings:
“Panel Sees Use for Genetically Altered Crops,” Detroit Free Press News Services (October 1997).
www.freep.com/news/health/qdiet141.htm.
Webbing:
Explore the links listed under “The Case For,” and “The Case Against Genetically Modified Crops,”
at the end of the website, “Poison Plants?” Scientific American Online: Explore! (July 1999).
www.sciam.com/explorations/1999/070599plants/index.html.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 14: Science and the Public
November 28 & December 1
Readings:
Daniel Callahan, “Calling Scientific Ideology to Account,” Society (May/June 1996).
David Guston and Kenneth Keniston, “Updating the Social Contract for Science,” Technology Review
(November/December 1994).
Randall Collins, “Ethical Controversies of Science and Society,” in Controversial Science.
John Horgan, “The Twilight of Science,” Technology Review (July 1996).
www.techreview.com/articles/july96/horgan.html.
Recommended Readings:
Michael Dertuzos, “The Enlightenment Bug,” Technology Review (January/February 2000).
www.techreview.com/articles/jan00/dertouzos.htm.
Assignment:
Short Essay (Due Tuesday)
Week 15: Science, Technology and the Future
December 5 & 8
Readings:
Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener, “The Year 2000: A View from 1967,” from Daedalus (Summer
1967). [Teich #15]
Herb Brody, “Great Expectations: Why Technology Predictions Go Awry,” Technology Review (July
1991). [Teich #16]
Recommended Readings:
Hans Koning, “Notes on the Twentieth Century,” Atlantic Monthly (September 1997).
www.theatlantic.com/issues/97sep/century.htm.
Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired (April 2000).
www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.
Webbing:
Revisit the website, “Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century.”
mars3.gps.caltech.edu/whichworld//explore.html. Given all of the readings for this course, which
scenario do you think is most likely to occur?
Assignments:
Class Presentation (5-10 minute group presentations in section):
Team Paper Option A: Present your group’s answer to any two questions from the team paper.
Team Paper Option B: Describe your group’s design project.
Final Draft of Team Paper (Due Friday)
9
Alternate Guidelines:
Late Submissions: Late papers and short essays will be accepted only through specific arrangement with your
section instructor.
10