Reflection Seven

This week we are talking about nuclear technology and the inequality between countries with and without this technology. The use of nuclear energy as well as weapons contributes to this discussion. There are a couple points which jump out at me, one of them being that countries without nuclear capabilities see attaining the technology as a matter of respect and part of joining the First World. The second point of interest is that nuclear weapons follow nuclear energy, such as in Iran when the United States gave them the energy technology and they proceded to adapt the technology.

To begin with, I am unsure as to why nuclear weaponry is so highly valued, my reasoning being that any country or entity that utilizes this weaponry, with the possible but unlikely exception of the United States and certain countries in Europe, will immediately be outcast by many governments in the rest of the world and likely dealt far more damage than they would be able to accomplish themselves. We are at something of a nuclear stalemate, while there are problems with an actual treaty being drawn up and agreed upon by the nations of the world, I do not see circumstances where a country or group would be able to use these weapons without terrible consequences. In my mind this makes nuclear weaponry somewhat irrelevant, and shifts the focus to the use of nuclear energy. I think that while nuclear waste is a problem, for developing countries a greater problem might be the current complications with oil, as well as the use of coal. I do not have any exact statistics, but barrels of waste are something that we can store until a method for disposal or even some sort of recycling/usage with other products is discovered. Compared to the alternative of coal, which is directly contributing to global warming and the greenhouse effect as it is used, I think there are merits for establishing nuclear energy within developing countries. I think Third World countries could be better off currently by not having to deal with the economically complicated oil.

The author talks about peace education. I find this very interesting, and am disappointed to reflect upon my own schooling and find a distinct lack of this form of education. Perhaps if nuclear energy could be given to countries along with some sort of stipulation and curriculum for mandatory peace education. As with many things, I feel that education is the answer here, if we are able to simultaneously bring countries into the First World with nuclear power, as well as help to educate and reduce physical conflict, perhaps we would be able to grant nuclear energy and halt the desire to create weapons of mass destruction simultaneously. I am not sure of the feasibility of such a plan, however I think it all comes back to education. If we invest in the education of other countries, perhaps we do not need to directly give them nuclear technology, rather the means to understand how to do it themselves.

Reflection Six

This weeks article addresses DNA testing in legal cases, and whether or not it promotes equality. Determining the equality of DNA testing is a complicated matter which brings to rise questions about the nature of equality within the legal system itself, such as the reliability and aptitude of public defendants and how the actual verdict of a case may be determined by the skill of the legal counsel rather than guilt or innocence.

There is both an optimistic and pessimistic way to view DNA testing, according to the article, the optimistic viewpoint tells us that some technologies, such as DNA testing “level the playing field” for those in court cases, whereas the pessimistic views DNA technology as an “enhanced means of social control.” Each side makes it’s own argument, the “level playing field” ideal allows for evidence based on science that removes inherent bias and can help the jury decide on a verdict without prejudice. The pessimistic view questions the nature of the system within which this technology is used, and raises the question of whether the technology will contribute to furthering systematic bias.

Personally, I agree more with the optimistic view,  and that the technology will contribute to more equality. Inherently, the technology itself is not biased. It is simply a means for deriving evidence. In situations where a defendant is innocent, I don’t see where DNA testing could be anything but beneficial as it can do nothing but further the case for innocence. When a party is guilty, it can help establish this without a doubt. As the article points out, DNA testing only applies to a certain minority of cases, and even when it does apply it is often underutilized. I think this is more of a statement about the speed at which technology progresses, and perhaps the willingness of certain law enforcement departments to adapt to new technolgy.

Cole’s analysis of DNA databases is worrisome, as open ended searching allows for law enforcement to find partial matches to DNA samples, which could lead to false arrests and even convictions. Familial searching utilizes this open ended searching to investigate blood relatives of a suspect. The article states that familial searching would “place more than four times as much of the African-American population as the Caucasian population in the national database.” This large inequality highlights the dangers of the DNA database and the need for careful implementation.  

Another context within which to view this dispute is in cases dealing with rape. Having benefits as well as drawbacks, DNA testing is useful in certain scenarios of rape, however in instances such as acquaintance rape, the dispute is not the identity of the suspect rather whether consent was given. A feminist, Holmes, worries that the use of DNA testing will reduce the credibility of eyewitness testimony, which could result as being damaging to the victim.

Holmes also worries that if DNA testing is considered to have solved the rape problem, social and systemic methods for mitigating rape may be undermined, such as measures which equalize the “social, economic and political status of men and women.” In conclusion, the author finds that while superficially DNA testing seems equalizing, deeper analysis demonstrates intertwined race, gender and class issues which do not have a simple answer.

Reflection Five

This week’s article, written by Susan Cozzens, addresses the nature of inequity and inequality within technology through the view of four political philosophies: libertarian, utilitarian, contractarian and communitarian. Each philosophy has it’s own positive and negative aspects. Before making this comparison, she quotes Amartya Sen and defines inequality. Sen’s view is that there equality is multi-dimensional, and each observer values different dimensions on different levels. By creating equality in one dimension, other dimensions become inequal, which is why finding a true equality is difficult.

Each particular philosophy has it’s own contribution, libertarian allows for rights of property but no other rights are addressed. Utilitarian relies on a “trickle down” effect where the raising of the upper class will eventually benefit all lower classes, however it does not consider the growing gap between upper and lower classes, and therefore does not have provisions for inequality.

Contractarian highlights “three ‘layers’ of distributive mechanisms” that apply to scientific and technological policies: “market exchange, market-oriented stimulus through public funding, and public research programs targeted at helping the least advantaged.” Cozzens goes on the illustrate that while there may be a three fold policy that is all inclusive, it does nothing to address growing inequality.  

This brings us to the communitarian philosophy, which puts the main focus on the community, meaning morality is based on the benefit to the community rather than the individual. The political philosophy also tells us that there are no standards for distributive justice, similar to the reading last week by Latour which emphasizes moral decisions being made based on individual circumstances rather than prior moral assumptions. One highlight of communitarianism is their warning against the polarization of wealth, that is the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor.

The conclusion of the article tells us that all of these philosophies have something to contribute to science and technology policy, and that a composite approach that includes all of these philosophies in certain aspects is necessary.