Nye paper notes:

• what limits on the topic are in the question?
• make sure to use evidence about things that have already happened as much as you can
  
• avoid your own assumptions and speculation unless you can support them
• make sure you consider the impact of the technology on different named groups (not just "some people...")
• be clear on the questions you are using from Nye and make sure those are from chapters 5-10, not chapters 1-4
  
• evidence
• the opinions of groups are part of your evidence, but you need to have sources (web sites, etc.) for those opinions
  
• data and statistics and specific historical events (in history examples are good evidence)
• quoting the opinions of experts (try not to use this too much--examples are better)
• integrate material from difference sources in each paragraph
  
•  people you know... --this is a plus but should be a small part of your evidence
• tables and photos are good if you give the source, but they don't count in the word count/length
• I prefer if you always use parenthetical citations even if you mention the source in the text
  
• laying out your argument--each paragraph should be a different step in your answer
  
• you may use "I", you certainly don't have to
• use formal academic writing, don't be chatty
  
• intro and conclusion should be your original argument, body is the evidence to support that argument
• with topic sentences and summary sentences (draw the conclusion for the reader) in each body paragraph that explain the evidence
• clean it up!
• proofread, watch for spell check errors, smooth out your writing
• be careful to avoid plagiarism: exact words must be in quotes with source, paraphrases still need source and need to be fully in your own words
  
• we expect much better writing in a paper than in an in-class test
  
• make sure you use proper format for your citations

How Nye's argument develops:

• the role of technology in history: do we have choices or is technological development deterministic
• what issues might we consider in choosing which technology is best--what questions should we ask of technology
  
• how do we make choices--not just the basis for how we make choices but the mechanism for making choices
  

"How should a society select technologies?"

• he has argued we have choices, a particular path for technological progress is not inevitable
• some technologies make for a better society than other technologies
• how are the choices made?
• individuals and the free market--as consumers we make choices
• corporations making decisions in a free market, but the market is often not completely free
  
• government regulation, incentives, funding, subsidies (eg. taking the lead out of gasoline)--shaped by the political process
  
• leave it to the experts to make the decisions (but who would carry out the decisions of the experts?--usually either corporations or government)
• one problem with this is that it is undemocratic (technocracy is not democracy)
  
• the other problem is that experts are biased
• what technologies should we choose to solve a given problem?
  

Example: should we build new nuclear power plants?
No new nuclear power plants were built for 40+ years until the Vogtle plant in Georgia was approved in 2009 and despite problems one reactor came into commercial use in 2023
Two South Carolina utilities: SCE&G and Santee Cooper announced plans in 2008 to build two more reactors at the VC Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville
after delays the project was cancelled in 2017 but ratepayers still have to pay the $9 billion cost (due to a law passed in 2007)

• consumers/public opinion
  
• if it can produce cheaper electricity, but so far it has been more expensive
  
• does not contribute to global warming
• worry about safety
  
• corporations
• will it be profitable? depends in part on government subsidized insurance
  
• is a good bet for the future?  there was new interest around 2005-2007
• what is the risk--will they be responsible for costs if the project fails
  
• the free market has resulted in companies in the last 20 years pulling out of building new nuclear power plants due to high construction costs and they expect natural gas prices to stay so low that nuclear power will not be competitive
  
• government
• regulation--higher safety standards make nuclear power more expensive
• nuclear power could be much safer if companies invested in new safer reactor designs
  
• government subsidies--these have played a critical role in making the industry possible
• nuclear power could be part of a strategy to move away from fossil fuels
  
• experts
• who are the experts?  mostly nuclear engineers
• are they unbiased?
  

Do we trust the voters to make decisions:

• how much do we value democracy?--it may not give good answers but it is better than the alternatives
  
• how do we educate voters to have more thoughtful opinions?
• experts explain, citizens make choices based on our values
  

Nye argues that we need to be careful what we leave to corporations and the free market (and he also mistrusts experts)

Free market:

• central characteristic of capitalism
• anyone can sell anything they want and people can choose what they want to buy
• consumers get to decide what they want--democratic
• free market matches supply and demand more accurately than central planning
• what are the problems that might arise if you allowed completely free markets
• environmental issues (the problem of the common)--in our overall interest but not in one company's interest
• monopolies and price gouging--anti trust regulation tries to prevent this
  
• companies sell things that are harmful, consumers can decide whether to buy them
• are there technologies it would be desirable to have that will not be profitable?
• companies might stop producing something people want so they will buy a more expensive product
• does a free market lead to large corporations having so much power they can distort democracy?
• technology leads to economies of scale leads to big corporations having an advantage over the little guy
• so our system puts limitations on the free market for the public good
  

cold war: capitalism and democracy vs. communism: centrally controlled economy and dictatorship
democracy in the sense of an equal voice for all may be diminished by big business capitalism

but he isn't convinced the government does a good job

what is the role of government?
are there other possible ways of making decisions?

• if there is an easy right answer--if the experts all agree and the public accept that--then an issue doesn't become controversial
• government is a mechanism for making decisions when we don't agree
• do you simply decide by popular vote?
• we elect people with the idea that they have values similar to ours but study the issue and come to a decision based on more knowledge
• decisions made by elected officials who have staffs to do research but who are very sensitive to public opinion
  

Role of public opinion:

• most people are leery of direct democracy--public votes directly on issues
• but public opinion makes a big difference
  

How do we change our system to stop climate change?

• we need to convince people the problem is serious
• it can't be solved by individual choices alone
• research possible changes that could help the problem
• committing to goals is fine but what paths do you choose to reach them
• tax incentives to buy electric cars
• regulations on generating electricity
• higher prices for gasoline and electricity
• cap and trade: those who can improve sell those credits to other companies
  

should we just do things based on public opinion?
Voters?  Government?

• public opinion has a big effect on what the government does
• voters choose leaders who they think will carry the country in the direction voters think it should go in
• government roughly reflects the will of the people
• corporations will do a lot of things to make money that some people might think were immoral
• if you want to stop that you need to pass laws--have the government regulate those technologies

What should be left to private industry and where should the government intervene?
Economists ask this as a question about the market

• Capitalism says in most cases a free market should make the best decisions (the invisible hand of the market)
• in what situations does the market fail to make good decisions?
• when there are factors that are not priced, where the people involved in the market don't have to pay the cost (such as pollution that affects others)
• the market doesn't account for those costs, and therefore companies have no incentive to make the right decision
  
• government regulation is then the best answer, even in the view of companies that want to do the moral thing
  

Assume that to reduce global warming we want to reduce production of carbon dioxide

• will the market by itself do that? maybe a little if consumers care
  
• government can require all companies to cut carbon production by some percent
• government can put a tax on carbon release
• cap and trade--permits to release carbon are bought and sold.  Government regulation creates a cost for doing something that has negative effects and so creates a market mechanism

Should the government regulate technological innovation? 
Can we rely on the market to give us all the technology we want and don't want?

we want technology to solve the problem

• that needs the right incentives
• we want technology to give us an easy solution but that isn't always possible
  

consider what new medications are developed:

• government research money
• where corporations think they will make the highest profits
• corporations are investing in treatments for high blood pressure, diabetes
• they are investing less in developing new antibiotics because they are less profitable
  
• where they fear they will be sued

Or should the government step in to make adjustments where we don't think the market is working well?

Nye gives examples:

• new drugs are heavily regulated by the federal government
• homeowners need to get permission and pass inspection to make major renovations on their homes (building codes)--advantages and disadvantages of those decisions being made locally
  

Can we find other ways to make decisions:
California voted on whether genetically engineered foods should be labeled

• was voting a good way to make the decision?--industry paid for a lot of advertising that probably determined the outcome
• or should legislatures make the decision
• how about a science court--experts testify, jury of ordinary people make the decision

Does this make sense?  In the case of pet cloning, where this technology goes is being left up to private industry, so consider two questions:

• why/when should the government be involved in deciding the direction of technology?
  
• how does private industry decide what technologies to develop and how effective is this system?

---

  regulation of technology:

what has shaped the history of regulation?

• The traditional belief was that ordinary people could and should watch out for themselves (buyer beware), but as consumer goods came to be made far away instead of locally and technology became more complex that didn't work so well any more.
• employees had no right to compensation for accidents from their employers because of a legal principle called "fellow servant"
• The progressive movement around 1900 led to the first regulations.  Anti-trust regulations around 1900 and the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906).  Workers compensation started in the 1910s.
• Concern about the environment in the 1960s and 1970s led to a new set of regulations, primarily to control pollution
• Businesses are also regulated, in effect, by what the courts hold them responsible for.  Product liability has grown to be more of an issue because of changing social values (the decisions of juries).  But don't jump to use the lawsuit about hot coffee at McDonalds as an example.

What is the impact of regulation?

• red tape makes it harder to do things, but automotive engineers say how much fun they had when the government mandated increased fuel efficiency and so the manufacturers were willing to invest in more innovation
• how do you draw the line of how safe is safe enough?

An engineer named Samuel Florman says regulation is a good thing

• as technology becomes more complex we can't protect ourselves
• some areas of harm (eg. pollution) cause costs that the businesses that do harm wouldn't have to pay
• regulation prevents the situation where the businesses that try to act more responsibility go bankrupt because they can't compete with the ones willing to cut corners.
• liability, not regulation, is the problem area.  Tort law has a life of its own--negligence no longer has to be proved

---

Nye's basic question in this chapter is whether it is ok to let corporations control technological innovation, or whether there should be regulation of new technologies--both prohibiting the development of some technologies and encouraging the development of others

If you think the government should be intervening in what technologies get developed, how do you do that?  Can we invent a better way?  What mechanism will lead to the best possible decisions.

• should the government simply go by public opinion?
  
• the Office of Technology Assessment provided some evaluation of technologies, but only when the federal government was involved in paying for the research and development
• some people oppose new technologies such as genetically engineered foods or methods of research such as animal experimentation
• the government can lead us in the wrong technological direction either by regulating technologies (is regulation of stem cell research political posturing slowing down valuable science?) or by subsidizing and giving tax breaks to the wrong technology (in Nye's opinion nuclear power and funding highways but not public transportation)
• technology can be seen as the easy solution to problems that come from deeper sources:
  

The Technological Fix=the idea that all problems (even social problems) have technological solutions

• technology isn't going to solve all our problems for us
  
• for example, if automobiles cause unacceptable pollution, add more technology to the automobile to reduce the pollution (instead of substitution public transportation).
• can technology solve the problems of the ghettos?  Solve the problems of war?
  
• Do we solve a problem like water shortages by persuading people not to water their lawns or not have lawns or by increasingly expensive technological systems to bring water from someplace else?  
•  Henry Ford: "We shall solve the city problems by leaving the city."
• "Americans in particular have often seen technological progress as the surest basis for progress in general, and have tended to believe that technological solutions to problems are less painful than solutions that require political or social changes." (Rudi Volti, Society and Technological Change, 3rd edition, p. 16)

 New York The difficulty of social problems:

• Social problems are much more complex and harder to solve than technological ones.  Yet technological fixes sometimes work, at least partially.
• The traditional solution to social problems is to try to get people to behave more rationally (or to act for the good of society rather than in their own self-interest).
• Goals are less clear for social problems, eg. stop crime.  Human behavior is hard to change
• technological solutions to social problems tend to be incomplete and to replace one social problem with another.
• how do engineers deal with the social aspects of a problem when they are trained to solve technological problems, not social ones? 
• is this also an issue for other professions?

What do we miss when we are focused on progress?
Does technological change always hurts someone?

• can we do anything about it or is that just the price of progress?
• Bill Joy Why the Future Doesn't Need Us (on the dangers of robots, nanotechnology and genetic engineering)
  
• Overcoming Yuk (on why we will accept genetic engineering of humans)
  
• Lessons of the Luddites
• Technology, Productivity, and Psychological Needs
• Frank Beacham on technology (a New York City-based writer, a native of Honea Path and the grandson of Dan Beacham, the man who ran Chiquola Mill during the shooting of 1934)

---

If you think government should have a role then the next question is:
How could the public participate more effectively in decision-making for science and technology?  Nye believes that many decisions about what direction we want to go in in the future are too important to be left to corporations thinking only about profit

• how might we decide what medical research the government should fund?
  
• what diseases affect the most people
• that isn't the only role for government because corporations tend to focus on those
• where do you get the most benefit for your money?
• lobbying by organizations like the American Heart Association, but also for less common diseases
• is there a better way to decide?
  
• is it appropriate to develop artificial red blood cells that can carry more oxygen (think what athletes could do then)?
• should drugs that allow us to get by with less sleep be developed and marketed?  You know that would be profitable, and the military has developed some good possibilities
• should parents be able to change the genetic features of their children?
• should we develop robots to care for old people?  Japan is quite far along with this
• is it desirable to have people live for 1,000 years--some scientists think this is possible

How to increase public engagement, how informed the public is, and how they analyze that information (Nye's questions)

• we are much more aware of the world as a result of technology
  • News coverage--the "global village"
    
  • but what kinds of news people consume is changing
• Seeing makes it seem realer--television coverage of the war in Vietnam was a major factor in the development of public feelings against the war
• who controls the news?  Is it politically biassed?  does that actually change public opinion?
  • The real answer isn't liberals, but the urban educated establishment, which happens to be somewhat liberal ( an argument that TV tends to favor conservative ideas )
  • has cable tv (public access and Christian channels) reduced this effect by reducing the cost of access?
• does technology have anything to do with why the press gives people less and less privacy?

---

 
Politics--future:

• would you want to have a system where people made more decisions directly--the electronic town meeting?  Town meeting  form of government still works pretty well in New England towns.
• we have the technology now to go back to a purer form of democracy--direct democracy instead of representational democracy
• tendency already visible towards putting more decisions directly in the hands of the public through referendums.
• can the public be educated?
• public opinion makes a big difference--eg. nuclear power
• can you educate public opinion on complex technology (Florman ch. 11)?  Lewis Thomas's view as a patient: "Don't explain it to me.  Go ahead and fix it."  Do we mostly decide which experts to trust.
• Florman: "I do not fear the coming of a sinister technocratic cabal, mainly because on consequential issues the technicians invariably give conflicting advice, and the politicians end up making the decisions whether they want to or not."
• other models of public participation, eg. science court
• rebellion against regulation, such as pirate radio

---

Making good choices of technology is something we need to work at--just leaving it to market or government isn't enough
how can we we set up a system where the values of the public and the knowledge of experts are put together