In this blog post, we will examine the need to expand the social responsibility and role of engineers, starting from the premise that technology is not value-neutral.
When something is described as “value-neutral,” it usually means that it is free from external subjective value judgments and does not have any specific ethical or social values in itself. It can also mean that researchers should focus only on objective facts and not be influenced by subjective values. However, the value neutrality of science is a complex concept with multiple dimensions, including four main meanings. The philosophical dimension is that science is a discipline that deals with facts, not moral imperatives. The methodological dimension is that mathematics, which is used in science, is applied to all phenomena in the same way and is independent of subjective values. mathematics in science apply equally to everyone and are independent of subjective values; the normative dimension, which states that scientists should not be influenced by external factors and should pursue pure science; and the social responsibility dimension, which states that scientists should be solely focused on their studies and are not responsible for the results of their research. From this, we can see that the concept of the value neutrality of science includes both the factual proposition that “science is value neutral” and the normative proposition that “science should be value neutral.” Numerous scholars have expressed their opinions on this concept, which is more complex than it appears, and there has been a long history of debate about the correctness of its content.
In contrast, there has been very little discussion on the value neutrality of technology, perhaps because technology has only recently begun to influence our lives, or because science and technology are usually grouped together under the single term “science and technology.” However, the pace of technological development has accelerated at an astonishing rate, and some say that we are approaching a singularity point where technological development will exceed a certain level and usher in a new era. Now that our dependence on technology is greater than ever, serious discussion about the value neutrality of technology is essential in order to understand and handle it properly. Therefore, we will focus on the semantic differences between technology and science and the social responsibility of engineers to question whether technology is truly value neutral, contrary to the common perception that technology, like science, is value neutral.
The dictionary definition of technology is “the means of applying scientific theory to the practical processing of natural objects to make them useful in human life.” It can also be said that technology is the creation of new mechanisms for human convenience based on existing knowledge, whether empirical or theoretical. In terms of the “how” of achieving a given goal of human convenience, there is an essential difference between technology and science, which belongs to the realm of “why” and explores the principles of nature. In addition to the difference between “how” and “why,” technology and science are also very different in that each individual technology has one or more specific purposes. Of course, some fields of science also have specific purposes. Alchemy, which formed the basis of chemistry, had the extremely mundane and specific purpose of turning all matter into gold. Astrophysics and thermodynamics, which made great strides with the purpose of creating theories that could perfectly explain new natural phenomena that could not be explained by existing theories, are good examples of purposeful science. However, technology differs from these because, although all individual technologies have a purpose, that purpose is very specific and distinct from the purposes of other individual technologies. The purpose of a car, which was created to replace large, unwieldy horses, cannot be the same as the purpose of stealth technology, which was created to build fighter jets that cannot be detected by enemy radar. On the other hand, scientific research can be easily classified into several purposes, such as confirming whether newly discovered natural phenomena fit well with current theories, creating new explanatory models, or proving new models created by others through experiments.
Technology differs from science in that it has individual and specific purposes. And in the process of setting such purposes, factors external to technology, such as social ideology and value judgments, inevitably influence the outcome. It is precisely in this respect that technology is not inherently value-neutral. In general, the goals of technology are to save money and time, provide psychological comfort to users, and stabilize systems through the use of technology. In this case, technology is developed based on the presupposed value judgments that “it is good to save money and time” and “stability should be pursued.” If value judgments arise from within technology or during the process of technology development, they are internal issues and do not affect the value neutrality of technology from an external perspective. However, the value judgments mentioned above come from outside the technology and are based on common values that are considered correct and shared by the members of the society that uses the technology. Depending on which group researches and uses the technology, it will move in different directions from different starting points, and therefore technology is not value-neutral.
Consider the Auschwitz concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Nazi engineers devised the technology of gas chambers to efficiently kill Jews. Like other technologies, this technology was created for human convenience, but the only ones who benefited from it were the Nazis, not all of humanity. The Germanic people, who believed themselves to be the greatest race, had a mission to rule over other races, and a special ideology called Germanic nationalism, which claimed that Jews, the cancer of society, must be exterminated so that they could not infect other races, had a profound influence on the purpose of technology. As a result, approximately 3 million Jews lost their lives. In addition to this extreme example, most technologies are unconsciously imbued with the unique ideas of the groups that develop and use them. These external factors determine the direction of technology at an early stage of development and, to a certain extent, determine its final destination. As a result, technology is not free from external factors, nor is it free from value judgments.
Let’s move away from this heavy topic and go back to the late 19th century when automobiles first appeared in the world. At that time, no one could have imagined that just 100 years later, more than 1 billion cars would cause serious environmental pollution, as people rejoiced at no longer having to clean up horse manure from the streets. However, over the past few decades, the number of cars has steadily increased, and cars have become an essential part of our lives. The argument that we should stop manufacturing cars to protect the environment has become ridiculous, and research is now focused on developing fuel-efficient cars and reducing emissions.
As the example of cars clearly shows, once a piece of engineering technology or invention begins to have a significant impact on our lives and becomes an important part of it, it is impossible to stop it, just like a giant snowball rolling down a mountain slope. If this house-sized snowball falls into a valley where no one lives, there will be no problem, but there is no guarantee that all snowballs will do so. Therefore, even when it is just a fist-sized snowball, we must keep a close eye on where it is rolling and carefully control the direction it will roll in the future. Engineers have a duty to make sure that the snowballs they create do not roll in dangerous directions.
Some people argue that it is the responsibility of ethicists, environmental experts, and futurists to predict and correct future ethical and environmental issues or the risk of accidents associated with technology, and that engineers have no role to play. This argument, which is based on the belief that in a highly specialized modern society, engineers can focus solely on technology development and other issues will be resolved by experts in their respective fields, has the problem of defining the field of expertise of engineers too narrowly. Of course, it is the role of sociologists and economists to answer questions such as whether it is right to build nuclear power plants, which pose a risk of major disasters, near residential areas, and how much economic benefit can be gained from building nuclear power plants. However, it is entirely up to engineers and scientists to present reasonable predictions and alternatives regarding the problems that nuclear power plants may cause and the efforts needed to prevent expected accidents. Furthermore, in the event of an accident, it would be impossible to analyze the cause and respond quickly without the help of engineers. In other words, the role of engineers does not end with technology development, but encompasses a wide range of activities, including the maintenance and repair of technology after it has been commercialized. Therefore, engineers must always keep their hands on the wheel of the technology they have created, communicating and exchanging opinions with experts in various fields.
This is related to the previous discussion. Technology is not value-neutral in nature, which requires engineers to be even more observant. Social factors have a significant influence on the initial stage of deciding what kind of technology to develop, so engineers responsible for technology development must consider whether the technology has been developed as originally intended, whether it is functioning as intended, whether there are any problems with the original purpose, and if so, how to prevent and prepare for any anticipated disasters.
However, no matter how much engineers want to take the wheel, if society keeps them away from it, the snowball of technology cannot be steered properly. Negative perceptions and treatment of engineers, or so-called “nerds,” cause this problem. Our society still tends to view engineers as passive beings who simply produce things according to given demands, which risks confining engineers to their technology. If engineers are confined within a fence and treated separately from the social background and the impact their technology will have on the future, it will be a disaster for both the engineers, who will not feel responsible for their actions, and the general public, who will be left with no talent to solve problems outside the fence.
We have already discussed how complex the concept of value neutrality in science is and how many different concepts it encompasses. Rather than taking a unified stance that “science is value neutral in all respects,” most people believe that science is value neutral in some respects but not in others. The same is true for the value neutrality of technology. People will probably have different positions on the various detailed concepts of the value neutrality of technology. That is why it is so important to discuss the value neutrality of technology. I welcome counterarguments to the points made in this article. I also welcome new opinions on aspects that this article has not covered. Whatever the case may be, the more people put their heads together and think about the question of whether technology is value-neutral, the deeper and richer the concept of technological value neutrality will become, and the more helpful it will be in steering the giant snowball of accelerating technology in the direction we want.
