Sarah M. Pancoast, spancoas@brynmawr.edu, 2 April 1998

Synopsis:
A. Motivation for Increased Technological Activity/Concerns
B. Current Legislation for Technology Policy
C. Criticism of Current Technology Proposals
D. Significance of Participation/ Efforts to Broaden the Range of Voices that Influence Technology Decisions
E. Significant Institutions/What are they doing?/What is lacking that should be occurring?

A. Reason for new rush of activity: due to social/market consequences

1) end of Cold War has initiated major political and economic changes

• previously, U.S. policies with science and technology were shaped by Cold War defense budgets and concerns
  
• currently, questioning long-standing institutional structures/rationales/funding. Eg. problems with Pentagon weapons' procurement-cost overruns, technological blunders

2) decline in global market role of U.S. manufacturing firms over past 20 years-want to reestablish U.S. competitiveness

• criticism: global leadership has not translated into infant health, life expectancy, literacy rates, equal opportunity, worker productivity, or resource consumption efficiency; still have failing education systems, decaying cities, environmental degradation, unaffordable health care, and national debt
  
• important to distinguish between market-driven policies and social-technology policies
  
• fundamental human goals should be priority over markets and technological developments

B. Current Legislation: Political agenda for technology is more comprehensive and unified than in the past

(1) 22 Feb. 1993 Clinton and Gore issue a formal proposal, demonstrating that technology policy is on the nation's political agenda. New technology represents and influences the future of American companies in the global marketplace

(2) Technology policy options recently proposed or adopted by the federal government:


a. support for development of advanced manufacturing technologies (robotics) and national network of manufacturing extension centers

• fed support for computerized flexible manufacturing systems

b. tax credits for research and development

• subsidized loans to promote technology exports
  
• government loans and venture capital for the development of targeted commercial technologies

c. new industrial partnerships for the national weapons laboratories

• down-sizing of, or new citizen missions for, national weapons laboratories
  
• increased support for developing 'dual use' technologies- technologies developed by U.S. companies for commercial application which can also be used in developing advanced weaponry. [Basis: firms are ahead of defense firms in technological sophistication-want military to gain civilian technological advantage
  
• assistance to companies for defense conversion

d. investing in 'green' technologies and in new infrastructures (ie., info. superhighway, high speed trains, upgraded roads and sewage systems)

e. Education and worker training in high technology

C. Criticisms of Technology Proposals:

1) Ineffective b/c they are unlikely to attain many of their goals

• Creating high quality wage jobs may not prosper if the plan successively substitutes new technology for labor
  
• Proposes a major shift from military to civilian technologies, but proposes only gradual reduction of the portion of federal R&D;dedicated to defense from 60% to 50%
  
• Proposes national investment in specific 'green technologies,' but fails to ensure that all technologies support environmental objectives

2) Ill-informed because they neglect different social and political repercussions-perceive technology as an economic tool that will enhance productivity and competitiveness, but tend to neglect the different social and political effects of alternative technology policies and designs


• gov't technology policies now promote high-tech production for global markets, rather than considering establishing complementary programs to promote more self-reliant local and regional economies that would bring economic, environmental, social and democratic benefits
  
• reduce pollution and costs of long-distance transportation, and prevent communities' dependence on multinational corporations

3) Undemocratic because policies fail to provide opportunities for many affected groups and sectors of society to play a role in shaping policies and future technological developments

1) Broader participatory opportunities are critical to creating effective, informed policies

• ex. Demanding worker involvement in consultations between businesses and manufacturing extension centers would allow for new technologies in workplace to enhance the number and quality of jobs

2) Lay participation in technological concerns is a moral and political right [democratic decision-making because citizens contribute through taxes and are influenced by the results]
broader participation would focus more attention to 'technologies' contribution to social stratification'

• techn. social consequences would be better monitored if there were more public participation by the people who experience the effects
  
• lay citizens may look for answers and propose insightful questions of possible political and social impacts that might go unneglected
  
• involving lay citizens in techn. decision-making influences technologies' role in shaping social power relations [could create more challenges to current power relations/create technology-related issues on which technical experts are not involved- this is a positive result because there would be broader opinions/solutions]

E. Significant Institutions/What are they doing?/What is lacking that should be occurring?
(1) Mainstream Institutions:
Three Groups that dominate technology policy-making

a. Pentagon and national weapons labs- federal gov.t's lead agency for funding dual-use technology development
b. Organized scientific research community
c. Business

a. public-interest groups (environmental, peace, civil rights, health, and labor orgs)

• not focusing on ways techn. policy will affect their own agendas, which means there is no effective societal attention to the broader social and political consequences of techn. policy

b. grassroots orgs
c. ordinary citizens

Foundations and National Forums: no major funders that encourage projects that are actively attentive to techn's social and political significance

(1) Carnegie Corporation and Sloan Foundation (funding academic studies of industrial competitiveness and productivity)- funded techn. policy with emphasis on advancing productivity and competitiveness

• Carnegie Commission suggests establishing a standing, nongov't. National Forum on Science and Technology Goals- focus is long-term goals, but possibly inattentive to indirect social impacts; thus, not a forum for lay involvement

(2) Markle andMacArthur- fund projects on the media and telecommunications and health, peace and environmental issues

(3) Technology Policy Analysis- National Science and Technology Council (cabinet-level group chaired by the President)-responsible for coordinating federal agencies policies thar involve science and techn.


a. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)was most active in social impacts and democratization- no longer exists, but it did in the early 1990's.

• evolved assessment methods-advisory councils, workshops, project reviews that require public participation
  
• involve representatives from org. constituencies with a clear stake in techn. development
  
• views of average citizens and overall public good are not well represented
  
• competent at evaluating techn. feasibility, funding, and environmental/health risks
  
• criticized for studying 1 techn. at a time and missing more important generic issues

b. Congressional Research Service
c. General Accounting Office

(4) National Academy of Sciences (NAS)-elitist institution that is a producer of science and techn. policy studies

• not focused on addressing non-economic, social and political consequences

(5) American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science and Policy Program (AAAS)-responsible for annual colloquium on R&D;policy, and publishes reports on federal budgets

• useful for researchers who want to lobby for larger budgets
  
• omits analysis for a citizen who wants to understand social significance of budgets or policies

(6) Public-interest groups of national stature (Federation of American Scientists)

• extremely effective, civic-minded critics of gov't. science and techn. policy
  
• their reasoning is restricted to technical, economic, or environmental concerns, lacking insights of community groups and broader public spectrum

Science, Technology and Society (STS) Programs: another think-tank that seeks insights into social impacts of science and techn.

(1) 12 major STS prgms. at U.S. universities
(2) gov't. funding for research is available
(3) research involves broad range of environmental, health and safety risks, science and engineering education, medical ethics
(4) doesn't pay attention to broader social, cultural and political impacts
(5) focus excessively on documenting the social origins of techn. and the role of social forces in shaping science and technology, rather than their social consequences
(6) excessively academic and disconnected from social movements (lack of literature on race or social justice and technology)
(7) not enough public circulation-few government and mass media reports cite STS

European Models:

(1) other nations are ahead of the U.S. in developing participatory decision-making processes

a. allow citizens to evaluate intentions and thoroughness of examinations, and their recommendations for new productions
b. helps evaluate the employment consequences of new production processes, environmental groups document sources of industrial pollution, social workers realize the impacts of the people who are affected

(2) Sweden, Norway, Germany and Denmark pioneer processes involving workers directly in designing/approving new technologies:

• Danish Board publishes citizen panels' judgments via media, local debates, pamphlets, videos [reports suggest that Danish public is better informed than other industrial publics]
  
• Dutch universities have implemented public 'science shops' to attend to concerns of community groups and public-interest orgs. about social and techn. issues [screen questions and refer problems to univ. volunteers (faculty and students)]
  
• Britain created Technology Networks (1980's) dedicated to helping people find answers to own techn. questions and focused on actual techn. development and production/marketing; lack resources and business sophistication to compete with lg. firms
  
• Scandanavia allows lay citizens to determine array of technologies that are developed: diverse, but restricted to involving workers in workplace technology and does not influence products that workplaces create

(3) Important to have feedback from government and political parties, in addition to business and academic leaders

Alternative Policy Options:
€Must have more political will to develop more democratic and socially responsive technology policies:

(1) Congress could require social and political impact statements as a complement to current environmental impact statements
(2) Voluntary social trials of new technologies to help evaluate unpredictable social Impacts
(3) gov't. could encourage universities and national labs to establish community service centers (similar to European 'science shops') to involve grassroots participation in techn, decision-making
(4) all gov't. science and techn. advisory boards could be required to include strong representation of worker, community, and public-interest views

Options for Foundations:
Options are needed because many established foundations/institutions are not producing enough of the needed kinds of studies, and not finding ways to make good use of what we do produce, SO:
€ foundations need to reorganize expenditures to focus more fully on technologies' impact on society and creating more involvement/participation of society:

(1) provide resources so that existing activists at local, state, and national levels can collaborate more
(2) broaden range of voices in national technology policy deliberations (internships and workshops)
(3) support conferences to sensitize gov't. leaders to the value of incorporating public-interest and grassroots perspectives

References (incomplete):
http://www.macfdn.org/techno.htm.
"Technology, Society, and Democracy: New Problems and Opportunities." Richard E. Sclove. May 1994.