THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE SOCIETY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION

Science, Technology and Society (STS) is an interdisciplinary field that studies the conditions under which the production, distribution and utilization of scientific knowledge and technological systems occur; the consequences of these activities upon different groups of people. STS builds on the history and philosophy of science and technology, sociology and anthropology, policy studies, and cultural and literary studies; all of which shape the modes of analysis deployed in the field.

The intercollegiate program brings together courses taught in a variety of departments, and is divided into three principal areas: history of science and technology, philosophy of science and technology, and social science approaches to technology and science. Courses explore the effects of science and technology on society and culture; the politics of socio-technical systems; science policy in national and international contexts; the social and environmental risks vs. benefits of technological and scientific advancement and, more specifically, cover topics such as the political economy of pollution, the culture of the scientific laboratory, theories of race and genetic engineering, social networking and the Internet, the body and politics of health.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE SOCIETY

Science in Transition

In the past, our scientific methods and institutions have tended to emphasize the study of individual natural processes rather than systems, analysis more than synthesis, and understanding nature more than predicting its behaviour. And in many instances, science has focussed on short-term, small-scale problems, often in mono-disciplinary mode, rather than on long-term, large-scale or integrated problems. While these approaches and perspectives have built up a considerable base of knowledge and led to a vast portfolio of useful technologies, especially in the 20th century, many of the problems now facing humankind can be solved only if we approach science more holistically. Greater effort is needed to understand integrated natural systems on multiple time and space scales.

Scientific findings must also be applied at the right scales. The impact of technological interventions on individual people, communities and the environment must also be carefully considered. To do this, science needs to become more multidisciplinary and its practitioners should continue to promote cooperation and integration between the social and natural sciences. A holistic approach also demands that science draw on the contributions of the humanities (such as history and philosophy), local knowledge systems, aboriginal wisdom, and the wide variety of cultural values.

The influence of science on people’s lives is growing. While recent benefits to humanity are unparalleled in the history of the human species, in some instances the impact has been harmful or the long-term effects give causes for serious concerns. A considerable measure of public mistrust of science and fear of technology exists today. In part, this stems from the belief by some individuals and communities that they will be the ones to suffer the indirect negative consequences of technical innovations introduced to benefit only a privileged minority.

The power of science to bring about change places a duty on scientists to proceed with great caution both in what they do and what they say. Scientists should reflect on the social consequences of the technological applications or dissemination of partial information of their work and explain to the public and policy makers alike the degree of scientific uncertainty or incompleteness in their findings. At the same time, though, they should not hesitate to fully exploit the predictive power of science, duly qualified, to help people cope with environmental change, especially in cases of direct threats like natural disasters or water shortages.

The current trend toward privatization in many countries is influencing the focus and practice of science. While in some instances the net result may be to increase research capacity and knowledge in selected areas, there is major concern that the trend may be undermining public-sector science, especially fundamental research and efforts to solve socially important problems of no interest to commercial enterprises. Patent protection of private intellectual property, for example, makes the job of public research more difficult. There is also concern over the social implications of private ownership and control of technology, and its effect on broad public scientific literacy, and on options for public choice.

Another major trend shaping science is globalization. The end of the Cold War, growing technology demand from emerging economies, world recognition of the interconnectedness of the planet’s biophysical systems and improved communications, especially via the Internet — all these forces are boosting cross-border scientific cooperation and information exchange between individual researchers, institutions and governments. However, much of the expansion is occurring in just a handful of scientifically advanced countries. For science to be truly global, more effort is needed to ensure all countries, rich and poor, and a wide range of world cultures are included in collaborative research and technology transfer. This is especially important in areas like global climate change which will affect, sooner or later, all human beings. With the right policies in place, joint scientific work in critical areas such as the Arctic, for example, could serve as a model for other types of global cooperation.

A major challenge for global science is to find institutional arrangements conducive to success. The proliferation of international networks and programs, the so-called “acronym jungle”, reflects a rather ad hoc approach, necessitated in part by the narrowness of purposes of established scientific institutions and the lack of strategic, integrated support by national governments in areas like global change or international aid. What is needed is the formation of true international partnerships that allow scientists in different disciplines and countries to fully support each other’s aims and share resources and management duties to mutual advantage.

Benefits of science and technology
promote multidisciplinary approaches to research, encourage cooperation between the social and natural sciences, and draw lessons from the humanities, local knowledge systems and aboriginal wisdom;

encourage a holistic approach to problem solving that takes into account a realistic range of socioeconomic conditions and effects, as well as multiple time and space scales, where appropriate;
carefully explain the implications and the inherent limitations of their research findings to the public;
fully exploit the predictive power of science to serve social needs with candid awareness of the limitations of scientific predictions;
promote the inclusion of scientists from resource-poor countries in international cooperative projects and maximize their access to information and technology;
encourage the creation of science-coordination mechanisms at the highest level of the United Nations, fully involving the governments of all countries, as a way to promote integrated responses to global problems.

Communication and Education

Within the general public, there is certain measure of mistrust and even fear of science and technology (S&T). Some is based on public experience, but much is the consequence of a significant communications gap between scientists and society. Many reasons are advanced for these attitudes: public ignorance or misunderstanding of science, inaccurate or biased media coverage, uneven distribution of the costs and benefits of science among different sub-groups in society, lack of public control over the applications of S&T, and the inability of some scientists to communicate ideas in plain language.

The issue of nuclear waste disposal is one example of how the gap between scientific findings (which, in this case, suggest that safe disposal technologies exist that are at least as safe as other industrial risks accepted by society) and public opinion and behaviour (continuing opposition to the use of such technologies) may sometimes appear intractable, that is, not amenable to solution simply through improved communication or further technical research.

Good scientific communication via the mass media is especially important in those areas directly and strongly affecting people’s lives — for example, before, during and after natural disasters such as storms, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, as well as in the general area of global change or depletion of natural resources. In communicating their ideas, scientists should make clear the limitations of their predictions and other pronouncements. But they should not shy away from public pronouncements just because their messages contradict public wishes or expectations; indeed, they should be prepared for negative reactions in those instances, and carefully explain the basis for their scientific conclusions or opinions.

Apart from communication by the mass media which is largely unidirectional, communication in the sense of an ongoing dialogue between scientists, the public, and policy-makers is also important. This may take many forms: public policy consultations and review committees, science fairs, open houses, and public information services provided by universities, research institutes and private companies. As the demand for transparency and accountability in science grows, communication of this type — as well as public participation in decision making about the applications of S&T — becomes imperative. Unfortunately, resources for such dialogue are lacking not only among scientific institutions but among those groups in society who have a particular stake in scientific developments and therefore something to gain through contact with scientists. Increasing privitization of scientific activity also discourages open communication of scientific findings and uncertainties.

Conclusion

Science education, particularly training in multidisciplinary and team approaches to research, is also in need of reinforcement. Many science education programs still focus on individual student assignments and individual evaluation, whereas the trend in both the public and private sector is toward team work, and the needs of society are increasingly met by the concerted efforts of many areas of investigation. Science, if it is to appeal strongly to youth, also needs to be demystified by educators — that is, presented in an attractive, stimulating fashion, with the abstractions of theory strongly linked to everyday life. Furthermore, students need to be more fully involved in public discussion of science and its applications. Not only are they the ones who will be most affected by the current direction of science, they are also the scientists and policy makers of tomorrow.

References

ASERE, M. O. ( 2013). Globalization and the challenges of human resource development in Nigeria: The counsellor’s factor. The Counsellor, Journal of the Nigerian Counselling Association of Nigeria, Vol. 16(1), pp.227-233.

COOLEY, I. (2010). The power of groups: Solution focused group counseling in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Counselling –Main (2014). Objectives of the university of Benin students’ guidance counselling centre. Retrieved on 10th March 2014 at http://www.uniben.edu/counselling-main

COY, D. R. (2004). Developmental guidance and counselling in today’s Alexandra, VA: National Association of Secondary Schools