Social Control of Science & Technology

SOCIAL CONTROL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

BSN 3B, GROUP 4

•It was devoted to analyzing the societal – influence 0 on – science – and – technology relationship.

•It focuses on greater depth on one kind of determinative societal influence on science and technology.

Six of its most influential forms:•Regulation•Funding and Management•Liability Litigation•Prior assessment mechanisms•Public participation•Legislative limitation

First issue:•Justification of this increasingly common practice.

- refer to as SCOST or Social Control of Science and Technology.1. First Justification:Unprecedented magnitude

- The potential effects or consequences of some modern scientific or technological innovations

- One rebuttal to this argument is that firms responsible for such fatal flaws will pay the price in the marketplace in the form of lost customer patronage

- - the usual response is that such intervention is aimed at preventing large – scale losses of such seriousness and scope from occurring in the first place.

2. Second Justification: Allowing the market free rein will exacerbate

existing social inequalities- it is argued that permitting the free

market to be the sole determinant of the allocation among affected individuals and groups.

- manufacturing plants is apt to affect workers in the plants that generate it.

3. Third Justification: fostering freedom in the form of voluntary consumer choices

Counterarguments:1. Political philosophical2. Economic3. That such regulation is unnecessary perhaps

even undesirable

4. Fourth Justifiacation: so much contemporary scientific and technological activity is funded in whole or in part with government money

- This is a variation on the theme of participatory democracy-Purports only to justify the public’s exercising contributory but noncontrolling influence in the funding process.-Counterargument: pragmatic one

6 INFLUENTIAL MODES OF SCOST

1. GOVERNMENT REGULATION WATERSHED

› Congress had long regulated interstate commerce, it limited itself to activities that either facilitated it or disburdened it.

› Establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 and its efforts to prevent unfair pricing practices by the railroads.

› It was the advent and flourishing of the high-pressure steam boat in the 19th century that gave rise to the first restrictive government regulation of a sector of private industry.

› PROBLEM: exploding steamship boilers ( from inadequate design, faulty manufacture, neglected maintenance, or unqualified engineer-operators)

› 1816-1851 (over 235 steamboat explosions occurred in the USA – Mississippi River – over 3,000 lives were lost)

› During 1838, the Congress passed a weak law, full of loopholes and imprecision.

› Only years later did the Congress pass stringent and restrictive legislation.

› The law: - Set a maximum allowable working pressure

for any broiler.- Required that it undergo yearly tests at

specified pressures- Specified features of design and manufacture.- Outlawed other designs.- Required certification of engineers.- Prescribed penalties for violating boiler

operation limits.- Created a board of inspectors to investigate

accidents.

› Arguments in the U.S. Senate over the proposed bill (supposedly inviolable private property rights versus the duty of representative government to act in the public interest.

› Question: Should the lives and property of the steamboat-going public be allowed to be placed in jeopardy to preserve the traditional immunity of private enterprise from positive government regulation.

› 1852- Congress finally answered in the negative.

CURRENT SITUATION› 1852 law› Important independent government agencies:

- Consumer Product Safety Commission (1972)- Environmental Protection Agency (1970)- Federal Communications Commission (1934)- Federal Maritime Commission (1961)- Federal Trade Commission (1914) - Interstate Commerce Commission (1887)- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1974)- National Transportation Safety Board (1966)- Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy,

Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, and Transportation

› Decade of the 1970s – witnessed “the most dramatic increase in federal regulatory activity ever”

› Federal Register – measures the growth of federal regulatory activity which publishes all proposed and final regulations. (from 9,562 pages in 1960 to 74,120 pages in 1980)

› The Center for the Study of American Business estimates that in 1986, about 112,300 people were employed full time in 54 govt. Regulatory agencies at a cost of almost $9 billion.

AN IMPORTANT RECENT CASE› Ronald Reagan made “regulatory relief” a

cornerstone of his new economic program.› In 1981, Reagan took steps to ensure that

cost-benefit-risk analysis bulked larger in the formulation and adoption of government regulations.

› He froze 172 pending regulations and appealed some legal cases that has grown out of them to the U.S. Supreme Court.

› American Textile Manufacturers v. Marshall- This revolved around the fact that,

depending on the density of fiber particles in the air, workers in cotton textile factories were at risk for “brown lung disease” (byssinosis).

- The Reagan administration asked the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court decision and send the case back to the Department of Labor for internal reconsideration in light of the president’s new cost-benefit policy for government regulations.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES› One problematic aspect of the entire

governmental regulatory enterprise is the fact that executive agencies are subject to periodic politicization.

› The possibility always exist that conflict may emerge between executive appointees with sharp ideological axes to grind & career civil service scientists and engineers & those who make regulatory decisions on the basis of legislative intent and solid empirical evidence.

2. GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND PERFORMANCE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

WATERSHED

Second important mode of SCOST is government extramural funding and intramural funding

Qualified mode of SCOST – influence on the directions and speed of national research and development

Undisputed watershed in 20th century is the research and development of ATOMIC BOMB – MANHATTAN PROJECT

- National Defense- Scientific research in the postwar era

• J. Robert Oppenheimer• Enrico Fermi• Edward Teller• Hans Bethe• John Von Neuman• Ernest O. Lawrence

CURRENT SITUATION

1989 Research and Development - $130.8BFederal Government ($61.05B) – 46.7%

Basic Research - $18.92B – 14.5%

• This work was carried out in numerous mission – oriented government facilities:

- Lawrence Livermore Laboratory – weapons research

- National Institute of Health- NASA Research- Space-flight centers

RECENT IMPORTANT CASES OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF S & T

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or Star Wars – initiated by Pres. Reagan in March 1983

Space Transportation System or Space Shuttle – Pres. Nixon in 1972 – between earth and space

OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

1. Effect of the Big S & T trend on American research and development

1987-1988 Space Station ($13-$30B) Superconducting Supercollider ($4-$6) Hypersonic jet aircraft ($3-$12)

1988 Human Genome ($3B) Practical nuclear fusion for provision of

electrical energy ($1B)

2. US GNP devoted to research and development is comparable to or exceeds the figures for its Western industrialized competitors

3. Contemporary research and development work

4. Implicit in some of the foregoing: the fact that the government seems to lack a coherent, long-term carefully prioritized S & T policy.

3. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

3rd important mode of societal control of S&T

Producers can be found liable for distributing or installing products & can be made to pay compensatory and possibly, punitive damages.

WatershedAt present, there are 4 generally recognid grounds on which a

manufacturer can be found liable for one of its products: Negligence- when reasonable care is not taken in the design,

production, assembly, or testing of a product that inflicts foreseeable harm to someone.

Breach of Warranty- when a product fails to fit the purpose for which it was intended (Implied Warranty) or fails to measure up to any explicit promise or claim made by the manufacturer (Express Warranty).

Misrepresentation- manufacturer’s advertising or promotion gives the buyer a false sense of security about the product, either by intentionally concealing potential hazards or by negligently failing to represent its hazards explicitly.

Strict Liability- when a manufacturer, even though not guilty of negligence, is held responsible for producing a product that injures someone who comes in contact with it, where the injury is caused by the defect in the product that rendered it unreasonably dangerous.

Privity- rule that an injured can sue the negligent person only if she or he was a party to the transaction with the injured person.

In the first half of 20th century, most involving food poisoning and inherently dangerous product like dynamite- a watershed case concerning strict liability was decided in 1963 in the California Supreme Court in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.

Most states now recognize strict liability as a ground for holding a manufacturer liable.

Current Situation

Product liability suits filed in U.S federal courts have proliferated in recent years from 1.579 in 1975 to 13.554 in 1985.

A Conference Board poll of 232 major U.S corporations revealed that of a total of 659 most recent products liability cases defect in product design was the most frequent allegation (35%), failure to warn (23%), defect in construction (22 %), incorrect or insufficient labeling (18%), and foreseeable misuse (7%)

Taking advantage of the relatively few highly publicized cases in which big product liability awards were made to plaintiff, the industry has attempted to induce federal legislators unsuccessfully as of 1989 to change liability law so as to make successful suits even less likely as they are at present

Recent Noteworthy Cases

Dalkon Shield Intrauterine Birth control Device Some 2.7M American women bought the A.H Robins

Company’s Dalkon Shield Intrauterine device (IUD). Many claimed they suffered infertility, birth defects, spon.

Abortion, traumatic infections and other pelvis infection induced by the device.

Aug. 1985, company filed for protection under Chapter11 of the U.S Bankrupsy Code.

Robin was directed to conduct an internat’l publicity campaign informing all potential claimants of their right to file claims.

Judge ordered company to set aside a trust fund of $2,475B to pay plaintiffs whose claims were deemed valid.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. In 1978, California jury awarded a

plaintiff $127.8M in damages against Ford as a result of an accident caused when a 1972 Ford Pinto stalled on a freeway and was hit from behind by another car.

Gas tank exploded and Pinto burned, killing the driver and injuring her passenger.

The car was produced for sale with a fuel- tank design known to pose a serious risk of harm.

Outstanding Issues and Problems

Lies in the difficulty of establishing the cause of harms suffered by humans

Difficulty maybe one of determining: Whether a given plaintiff were injured

by a product to which they were exposed

Which of several companies producing a generic product shown to have been harmful was responsible for the injury suffered.

The 1st kind of difficulty involving determination of cause, Agent Orange- herbicidal defoliant containing dioxin to which many servicemen, U.S and Vietnamese, were exposed and caused death.

The judge decided that awards would be made on the degree of disability incurred regardless of cause.

2nd difficulty in the case of diethylstilbestrol (DES) an FDA approved drug to prevent miscarriage.

Today, DES is held responsible for cases of cancer in daughters of mothers who had taken the drug while pregnant.

4. Mechanism for Environmental and

Technological Assessment

Watershed

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969“declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.”

“ every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

-->>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)

EXAMPLE:Tennessee valley Authority’s huge Tellico Dam

Destroyed the only known habitat of the “three-inch snail darter fish.”

Technology assessment of 1972

Rationale:-Lay in the recognition of a growing disjunction between the new technological reality and the old political order.

Office of Technology Assessment( as an analytical, investigative arm of Congress)

Task:› Identify existing and probable impacts,

including unintended consequences, of technological innovations and development, and policy alternatives to proposed or existing courses of technological action.

› Disentangling knotty technical issues.› A step toward matching changes in governance

to the changes – both in pace of life and scale requirements – wrought by technology.

Current Situation

EISs continue to be required for all government projects that might substantially alter the natural or human-made environment.

Recent Noteworthy Cases

10 – Year struggle over Westway(a proposed 4.2 mile, multibillion-

dollar highway and real estate development project along the west side of Manhatann Island from 42nd street to the Battery.

- “fish survival”- The project has been cancelled.

Outstanding Issues and Problems

Problem:› Reliance on an EIS as a way of promoting

responsible forecasts of the effects of science – and technology-intensive projects is the same as the problem in the case of regulation.

5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1. By formal governmental efforts to inform the general public about specific, often contentious scientific and technological matters

2. By measures to better inform government about the views of the public on specific matters scientific and technological (e.g., through public participation in legislative hearings, government advisory boards, and commissions of inquiry)

3. By ensuring that the views of the public are taken into account in process of administrative and regulatory decision making involving science and technology

4. By efforts to involve the public more directly in science and technology policy making (e.g., via referenda, citizen initiatives, and citizen review boards).

WATERSHEDS Last 2 decades concern technological

development: nuclear power plants, and high-rise buildings

Citizens have been asked to approve or disapprove of the start-up, continuation, expansion, or restriction either of nuclear power in general or of particular facilities.

1978 national referendum in Austria- Austrian voters rejected government plans to

put into operation the nation’s first nuclear power plant

1976 citizen initiative in the state of California- Californians voted against “Proposition 15”, a measure

which would have required the California electrical utilities clearly demonstrate the complete safety of nuclear power facilities in the state being before allowed to operate.

- Unsuccessful but an important development in SCOST in the U.S.

June 1989, Sacramento, California residents approved a landmark citizen initiative to shut down Rancho Seco, the city’s problem-plagued, financially troubled nuclear power plant.

“Manhattaanization”- 1st citizen initiative in U.S. history proposing to impose

height limits in proliferating downtown high-rise office buildings

- However resoundingly defeated, it marked the onset of aprocess of slowly growing citizen discontent.

“Proposition M” in November 1986, San Francisco- A citizen initiative which imposed the most stringent

limitations on urban high-rise growth ever enacted in the U.S.

“Cambridge Experimentation Review Board”- a citizen review board to assess the adequacy of the safety

procedures for public health and safety of recombinant-DNA research

- The board concluded that the DNA research should be allowed to continue however, it recommended “broader public representation on the university biohazards committees required by guidelines” and that “a separate Cambridge biohazards committee be set up to oversee all research in the city.

CURRENT SITUATION and NOTEWORTHY RECENT CASES

“institutional biosafety committees”- Required by the National Institutes of Health for all

institutions that receive funds from it from DNA research, draw 20% of their members from the general public with no connection in the institution where the research is being performed.

Referenda on nuclear power facilities continue to be held, and more are slated for the future.

- In U.S., the trend seems to be to oppose nuclear power in general by attempting to close particular facilities on grounds of safety and high cost of power produced.

November 1987, Italian voters overwhelmingly approved 3 nationwide referenda designed to limit the development of nuclear energy.

“Proposition 65”- The Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement

Act, requires business either to prove that their products and emissions are safe or to provide “clear and reasonable warnings” that they contain or emit chemical substances that may cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

OUTSTANDING UNRESOLVED ISSUES and PROBLEMS Well-endowed private parties with vested interests

in the outcomes (e.g., industry associations) can commit substantial amounts of money to support their side, typically many times more money than is available to the citizen groups who launched or support the initiative. Such tactics can sometimes effectively “buy” the desired outcome. Further, voters are called upon to vote simply “yes” or “no” on complex, multifaceted technical issues.

Unlike legislative deliberations, opportunity for refining an initiative often comes only after its defeat. Supporters must once again undertake to get the revised version before the voters in a future election.

The citizen initiative is a valuable, if sometimes crude tool of last resort.

6. Legislative Limits on Science and Technology

Landmarks› SST (Supersonic Transport) : most striking

American example› The Delaney Clause : forbids inclusion in

any foods or drugs any additives known to be carcinogenic.

Current situation› Prohibit or terminate technological

innovations› Heightened environmental awareness› Increased sensitivity to unequal

distributions og the benefits and costs of technology

› Explosion of biomedical research on new beginnings to life

› Delicate experimentations involving human subjects

Noteworthy Recent Cases and Development› Legislative bans on research modifying

human genetics- Certain embryo and fetal tissue experiment- Production of transgenic animal species via

genetic manipulation- Surrogate motherhood

› Restricting polygraph device- For screening job applicants

Outstanding Issues and Problems› Post World War II period› Interplay of manual legislative budget cyles› Increasingly sophisticated scientific

instrumentation can render categorical legislative problems

› Legislatures confronted with demands for unconditional bans of controversial technologies

› No census exists about the proper role of democratic legislatures in advancing or moderating the pace of development

CONCLUSION

There are number of ways in which societal forces attempt to exercise control over science and technology and these SCOST mechanism evolved by modern industrial societies

These modes of SCOST may be seen as potential parts of a kind of comprehensive trial process (endeavor is subject to intervention by potent social forces attempting to shape its nature, channel its course, or modify its conditions and likely consequences)Important possible SCOST intervention points which one or more modes of SCOST used to intervene at the point in question (chronological order):

1. Conception/Initiation: government funding2. Prioritization: public participation, legislative limitation3. Process of securing funding : public participation & government funding4. Early research and development work: government funding & legislative limitation

5. Preliminary design specifications for an experiment, technic, or system: regulation6. Preliminary design approval: government funding7. Testing of product, apparatus, system, or process prior to final design approval: regulation8. Final design approval: regulation & government funding9. Ensuing experiment or development process: government funding10. Product-manufacturing or system-construction phase: regulation, a priori assessment mechanisms & legislative limitation11. Post-facto testing of product or system: regulation12. Diffusion of results: legislative limitation13. Deployment and testing of distributed product or system: regulation14. Use of operation of product or system: regulation, public participation & legislative limitation15. Emergence of alleged consequences of product or system use: legislative limitation, product litigation & regulation