This blog post examines the positive and negative impacts modern science and technology have on society, along with the social responsibilities scientists and engineers should uphold.
The Influence of Science and Technology in Modern Society
In the 21st century, the influence of science and technology on modern society is immense. The invention of chemical fertilizers dramatically increased food production, enabling all humanity to eat without scarcity, while the invention of the steam engine laid the foundation for the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, the birth of the internet allows real-time access to information from anywhere in the world, and the advent of railways and airplanes connected global transportation. New technologies have contributed to human progress across diverse fields. However, the impact of technology on society is not always positive. The use of chemical fertilizers caused environmental problems like groundwater eutrophication and soil acidification, while many factories built during the Industrial Revolution led to environmental pollution. Alongside the development of the internet, ethical issues such as personal data leaks and cyberbullying exploiting anonymity have emerged, and technologies enabling mass destruction, like atomic bombs and weapons of war, also exist.
Thus, technology exerts a profound influence on society, whether positive or negative. Nevertheless, the process by which scientists and engineers research and develop new technologies often lacks sufficient consideration of the impact that technology will have. There are several reasons for this, one being that scientists and engineers tend to believe technology is value-neutral. This belief in technological value-neutrality justifies shifting the responsibility for the social impact of new technologies to the politicians and citizens who will use them. Therefore, we will explore whether technology can truly be free from values and, based on this discussion, examine what social responsibilities scientists and engineers should bear in modern society.
The Value Neutrality of Science and Technology
Before discussing the value neutrality of technology, let’s first define what technology is. In modern times, the boundary between technology and science has become largely blurred. Professor Hong Seong-wook of Seoul National University states, “Not all technology is an application of science, but modern science and technology share numerous points of intersection where their theories and practices intersect and interact.” Just as the discovery of electromagnetic induction led to the invention of the generator, and the invention of the telescope aided numerous discoveries about the universe, scientific discoveries lead to technological inventions, and technological inventions give rise to new scientific discoveries. Moreover, in modern times, scientific research is increasingly conducted to advance specific technologies, and technology is increasingly developed to support scientific research in specific fields. This characteristic of modern science and technology has made it practically very difficult to establish a clear boundary between the two. Therefore, to truly discuss whether technology is free from value, we will examine not only technology itself but also the value neutrality of science.
The value of technology can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic values. Intrinsic values include efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and utility, while extrinsic values encompass ethical, political, and social values. Discussing whether technology is value-neutral from all perspectives is not only difficult but also irrelevant when later addressing the responsibilities of scientists and engineers. Therefore, we will focus here on the value neutrality of technology in relation to its extrinsic values.
From an ethical perspective, each technology can be considered fundamentally value-neutral, with value being created by the manner of its use. However, technology is created with specific intended purposes. Some technologies may have intended uses devoid of any ethical value, while others are more likely to have inherently negative values, making them ethically biased. For example, firearms or weapons of war are intended for killing. Of course, one could argue that weapons of war, like firearms, are not inherently value-neutral because their value is created not by their predetermined purpose but by their actual use—they can be employed as tools for deterring war rather than killing. Considering the case of the atomic bomb, created as a result of the ‘Manhattan Project,’ which ultimately caused mass destruction, the above argument seems idealistic. The fundamental purpose of war weapons remains killing, making it difficult to consider them ethically neutral.
From a political and social perspective, for technology to be value-neutral, it must be created and used without any external influence on its values. However, technological invention occurs within the process of creating something useful for specific industries, governments, or societies, and it centers around addressing particular problems. Within this mode of production, the process is influenced by the interests and value judgments of groups, making it difficult to call it value-neutral.
Yet, as mentioned initially, in modern society, there is significant interaction between science and technology, and the boundary between them is quite ambiguous. In this context, if the purpose of using a particular technology is solely related to the advancement of science, it is difficult to say it possesses specific values from an ethical standpoint. Furthermore, if the group of scientists developing it maintains an independent relationship with society, it could be said to possess neutral value from a political and social perspective as well. Therefore, to discuss whether technology is value-neutral, considering all these points, let us examine the value neutrality of science.
The value of science can also be divided into intrinsic scientific value and extrinsic value. The value neutrality of science discussed here, like technology, relates to the latter, so we will address it from ethical and political/social perspectives respectively.
From an ethical perspective, scientific facts deal with propositions of truth or falsity based on observed evidence, so they can be considered devoid of any ethical value. This idea stems from David Hume’s distinction between statements of fact and statements of value, asserting that “statements of value cannot be derived from statements of fact.” Based on this, scientific facts themselves can be considered value-neutral. However, we must consider that scientific facts influence how people perceive the world and affect individual value systems. René Descartes, a 17th-century scientist and philosopher, argued that only humans possess souls, and since animals lack souls, they are no different from machines. This claim naturally influenced ethical values regarding animal cruelty. Furthermore, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and related assertions impacted values associated with various religions. While scientific facts may be independent of values, their recognition by individuals involves an exchange of influence with other values. Considering this, while scientific facts themselves may be value-free, the influence they exert is not value-free. Consequently, the influence of scientific facts naturally impacts the criteria used to judge the value neutrality of technology.
From a political and social perspective, the scientific community maintains independence from the world and can thus be considered value-neutral. Regarding this, consider the shift in the knowledge production process in science described by M. Gibbons.
In modern times, the knowledge production process in science has shifted from Mode 1 to Mode 2. In Mode 1, knowledge production occurred within an academic context associated with pure research, carried out by a scholarly community largely uninterested in practical applications. With the shift to Mode 2, knowledge production occurs through negotiation with diverse stakeholders and reflects their interests. Research also aims to be useful to industry, government, or society as a whole, and is centered around specific issues or problems.
Through this change, the modern scientific community is influenced by various external groups. In this process, it is influenced by the values and interests of these external groups, making it difficult to view the scientific community as value-neutral. If science is influenced by external values and develops in a direction aligned with specific values, then the technology created based on that theoretical foundation cannot be considered free from values either.
The Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers in Modern Society
Thus, in modern society, it is difficult to assert that technology itself is completely free from values in ethical, political, and social aspects. Furthermore, the scientific knowledge forming the theoretical foundation of technology is also influenced by values during its production process, and the influence science wields impacts the assessment of technology’s value. Therefore, scientists and engineers must exert as much effort considering technology’s social impact as they do developing it. Of course, one might argue that “even if there are issues of value judgment related to science and technology, these should be addressed and discussed by experts in the field, such as ethicists, rather than by scientists and engineers themselves.” However, modern technology and science are becoming increasingly complex, requiring a deep understanding of technology itself even in the process of predicting its societal impact. Considering these points, scientists and engineers must also sufficiently contemplate the impact and value that technology will bring during the development process.
Indeed, recent research ethics in science and technology present a comprehensive concept based on this thinking, one that includes the social responsibility of scientists and engineers. Specifically, the twelve ethical principles for scientists proposed by the American ethicist D. B. Resnik include an item on social responsibility. Here, he states that scientists should strive to avoid harming society and to create social benefits. If even when crossing a stone bridge, one is advised to test it first, should we not engage in deeper reflection and examine it from multiple angles before crossing a bridge built with modern cutting-edge science and technology?
