Terry Vaughn
School of Information
The University of Texas at Austin
INF 380K - Doty
April 6, 2004
Technology has been surrounded by controversy at least since early modern
times, when the program for its development was first laid out in the spirit
of
René Descartes' new approach to science. After the industrial revolution,
as the potency of science based production and
engineering
became obvious to the vast majority of society, the controversy over technology
broadened and intensified, so that today it encompasses many vital issues.
In approaching the many ethical positions regarding technology, it is helpful to idenfify certain idealogical patterns. In a noteworthy effort to map out these patterns, Postrel (1999) divides the controversy into a debate between "dynamists" and "stasists," with the latter consisting of either "technocrats" or "reactionaries." Postrel delineates the options this way partly for polemical reasons, but she uses them adroitly to defend the dynamist position.
As Postrel acknowledges, her work draws on the theoretical contributions of others, especially that of F. A. Hayek. In fact, her labels parallel the ones sketched by Hayek (1960) in his well-known postscript to The Constitution of Liberty, where the defenders of liberty and spontaneous development are differentiated both from collectivist planners and from "true conservatives." Postrel brings technology to the forefront by framing these options as alternative ways of envisioning the future, particularly as it might be shaped by technological change. Hayek confessed himself to be at a loss for a term to describe "the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution." He suggests "Old Whig" as an option -– a term of political origin (p. 408). Postrel offers instead the term "dynamist," whose connotations seem more technological than political.
Postrel's most valuable insight, from an analytical standpoint, is her recognition that the broader controversy over technology is structured around two primary questions: the question of benefits versus harms, and the question of controls. Although this essay will not broach the former question, it will explore the ethical considerations when political control is exerted over free scientific inquiry and its technological applications.
~ ~ ~
Among conservatives, there has been a tendency to restrain scientific progress in contemporary America, particularly in the field of biotechnology. Scientists in this field have peddled utopian visions of humans maintaining longer life, free of disease with improved memory, cognition, and mood. But an important element of the conservative reaction against certain biotechnological advances has had to do with a profound mistrust of utopian visions. The most destructive utopian fantasies – from the eugenics of early 20th century American progressives, to the historical science of the communists, to the genetic theories of the Nazis – advanced a malevolent political agenda under the auspices of science. Fearing "biotechnology run amok," federal funding for certain stem-cell research has been prohibited. Unfortunately, this includes research aimed at preventing and curing diseases that afflict and kill millions. Furthermore, this prohibitive approach is not destined to stop robust stem-cell science; instead, it is likely to chase it offshore to countries where conservative arguments against stem-cell research hold little sway.
Unlike the moralistic, partisan divisions of biotechnology, the emerging field of nanotechnology is divided between those who think it will simply improve our lives and those who think it will completely transform them. The former group thinks of nanotechnology as essentially a new branch of materials science. The latter group, inspired by the visionary nanotechnologist Eric Drexler, hews to a more ambitious vision in which advanced nanotechnology, known as molecular manufacturing, will radically reshape the world – literally at the atomic level. Many people in the former category fail to see the feasibility of Drexler’s version of nanotechnology.
In spite of their detractors, Drexlerians espouse the potential benefits of molecular manufacturing. For example, molecular machine systems could be used in medicine to destroy disease-causing molecules or repair damaged tissue. In environmental applications, it would be possible to construct highly refined products that produce no pollution. Molecular systems could be used for environmental cleanup. In one other example, molecular manufacturing systems could produce strong, ultra-lightweight materials that would significantly lower the cost to access space (Molecular Manufacturing, 2003).
Indeed, potential risks of molecular manufacturing exist as well. Accidents involving technology that rearranges matter could be potentially disastrous. Deliberate abuse of this technology could be catastrophic. So guided by science fiction-inspired fears of Drexlerian nanobots gone wild, and following a familiar pattern, policymakers have witheld funding for molecular manufacturing research.
~ ~ ~
As one surveys
the many fields of technology, one cannot help but notice a common theme:
to improve the human condition. Despite its inherent risks, the preponderance
of technological advance has been toward the common good. By contrast,
no piece of legislation – however magnanimous
its intentions – has ever cured disease or fed the starving. This
is not to suggest that technology should be allowed to develop and proliferate
unchecked; rather informed representatives should be allowed to debate
and shape policy that mitigates risk, while maximizing potential benefits.
Of course, this is not as easy as it sounds, but it is crucial to include
diverse opinions and interests to insure balance and responsibility. Incremental
progress consisting of free scientific
inquiry,
evaluation and discourse, culminating in ethical
application will, on balance, lead to the betterment of our existence.
Postrel, V. (1999). Future and its enemies: the growing conflict over
creativity,
enterprise, and progress. New
York, NY:
The Free Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1960). Why I am not a conservative. In Friedrich A. Hayek, The
constitution of liberty.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Molecular manufacturing:
societal implications of advanced nanotechnology.
Presented to U.
S. House of Representatives Committee of Science,
108th Cong., Retrieved
April 1,
2004, from http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm.
(2003,
April 9). (Testimony of
Christine
Peterson).